DECISION AND ORDER
*1 Defendant herein moves to set aside the guilty verdict against her,1 on the grounds that the trial court’s exclusion of one of her attorneys from the courtroom for a brief period of time, during which no testimony or legal argument took place, violated her rights to counsel and to a public trial. Because the attorney had, up to that point, engaged in conduct which was disrespectful, disruptive and, most importantly, which made it impossible to have a complete and accurate record, the court was justified in removing the attorney until her supervisor appeared and remedied the detrimental practices, and defendant’s rights were not injured thereby. The motion is therefore denied.Katharine Mendez was charged with Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, P.L. §145.00(1), Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree, P.L §140.10(a), and Trespass, P.L. §140.05. The charges arose out of allegations that she spraypainted offensive comments on the house of a romantic rival. The People moved to reduce the Criminal Mischief count to the class B misdemeanor of Attempted Criminal Mischief and a bench trial commenced before this court on October 20, 2017. The People were represented by Assistant District Attorneys [ADA 1] and [ADA 2]2. Defendant was represented by the Office of Peter Jones, Esq., which is the Bronx Criminal Defense Practice of The Legal Aid Society. Mr. Jones had designated [Attorney A], and [Attorney B], to appear for defendant in this case. Although Ms.[Attorney A] took the lead counsel seat at trial, the two defense attorneys appeared to jointly represent their client; they each questioned witnesses, made objections, and presented legal arguments. They also conferred with each other throughout the trial.From the outset, even before opening statements, Ms. [Attorney A] persisted in speaking out of turn, by interrupting her adversary, speaking over him, and speaking over the court. On several occasions she also turned to Mr. [ADA 1] and addressed him directly, even after being admonished to speak only to the court. For example, on October 20th, before opening statements, there was legal argument about the failure of the People to preserve the 911 recording. As Mr. [ADA 1] was speaking, the defense attorneys interrupted, and were admonished by the court, “Counsels, can you not be speaking while the ADA is speaking?” to which Ms. [Attorney A] replied, “Sorry.” (Tr. Oct. 20 at 6)3A few minutes later, the People requested permission to question the complainant about prior interactions with defendant. The court heard the
