| People v Singletary |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04631 [63 AD3d 1654] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LaverneSingletary, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Patrick H. Fierro of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedJune 23, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted burglary inthe third degree, attempted assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia,attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20), defendantcontends that reversal is warranted based on County Court's mishandling of his complaintsconcerning his second attorney. We reject that contention. The record belies the contention ofdefendant that he requested new assigned counsel, and thus it cannot be said that the court erredin failing to conduct an inquiry to determine whether good cause was shown to substitutecounsel (see People v La Bar, 16AD3d 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 764 [2005]; cf. People v Sides, 75NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's complaints "'suggest[ed] a serious possibility of good cause for substitution' requiring a need for furtherinquiry" (People v Reese, 23 AD3d1034, 1035 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 779 [2006]), we conclude that the courtafforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning his second attorney, andthe court thereafter " 'reasonably concluded that defendant's . . . objections had nomerit or substance' " (id. at 1035; see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004]). We haveconsidered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.