60, 67-68 [2d Dept 2008]; People v Robinson, 27 Misc 3d 635,
636-637 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2010]; see Young v United States
ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 US at 790, 802, 809.) Just as
respondent District Attorney’s delegee prosecutors may not
represent the victims of offenses charged, so, too, they may not
represent the complainants of offenses, the police officers. ‘‘In
the case of the prosecutor, all . . . obligations flow not to the
complainant, but to the public, which is the client.’’ (Sedore v
Epstein, 56 AD3d at 63, 67; see Young v United States ex rel.
Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 US at 790, 802, 809; People v Zimmer,
51 NY2d 390, 393 [1980].)
A prosecutor ‘‘is the representative . . . of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern . . . and whose interest, therefore, in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done.’’ (Young v United States ex rel. Vuitton et
Fils S. A., 481 US at 803; Sedore v Epstein, 56 AD3d at 66; see
People v Zimmer, 51 NY2d at 393.) ‘‘The responsibility of a
public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his
duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.’’ (Young v United
States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 US at 803.) Respondent
District Attorney represents the people of New York County,
not any party that may benefit from the prosecution or convic-
tion of a criminal offense, and therefore must pursue only the
public interest, without any interest in any objective other
than the propriety of criminal charges and without even the
potential or opportunity for such an influence. (Id. at 804-805,
810-811.)
Thus, ‘‘when a conflict of interest potentially impairs the
prosecutor’s obligation to do justice’’ (Matter of Sedore v Ep-