| People v White |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02008 [60 AD3d 877] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Malcolm White, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano,Jr., J.), rendered February 10, 2006, as amended February 15, 2006, convicting him of bribery inthe third degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant's contention regarding the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct before thegrand jury during cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Meleance, 52 AD3d845 [2008]) and, in any event, is without merit (People v Thomas, 213 AD2d 73, 76[1995], affd 88 NY2d 821 [1996]).
The defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his request for substitution ofcounsel or, in the alternative, to allow him to proceed pro se, is without merit. Although anindigent defendant has a right to a court-appointed attorney, he or she does not have the right tochoose assigned counsel. The decision to appoint new counsel is within the trial court'sdiscretion upon a showing of good cause (see People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19[1982]; People v Garcia, 284 AD2d 479 [2001]). Here, the defendant's conclusorystatements that he lacked confidence in his attorney, and his general expression of dissatisfactionwith counsel, were insufficient to establish good cause for a substitution of counsel (see [*2]People v Banister, 15 AD3d 497 [2005]; People v Laws, 6 AD3d 212[2004]; People v Bailey, 224 AD2d 435 [1996]).
The defendant's request to represent himself was not clear and unequivocal, because it wasmade in the context of a request for substitution of counsel. His request was raised as a way ofrelieving assigned counsel. Moreover, the defendant's request was made in the alternative. Hewanted to represent himself only because the court refused to replace counsel (see People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85,88 [2006]; People v McClam, 297 AD2d 514 [2002]). Under the circumstances, the courtdid not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for substitution ofcounsel, or in the alternative, to represent himself. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Eng,JJ., concur.