| People v McNitt |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04909 [96 AD3d 1641] |
| June 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JonathanMcNitt, Appellant. |
—[*1] Jonathan McNitt, defendant-appellant pro se. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), renderedFebruary 18, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in thesecond degree, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofassault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [former (3)]), resisting arrest (§205.30), and disorderly conduct (§ 240.20 [3]). Contrary to defendant's contention, CountyCourt did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for new counsel (see generally People v Rolfe, 83 AD3d1219, 1220 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 809 [2011]). The record establishes that thecourt made a sufficient inquiry and determined that there was no good cause for substitution (see generally People v Linares, 2 NY3d507, 510-511 [2004]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that thecourt erred in admitting in evidence testimony regarding an uncharged crime (see People v Thomas, 85 AD3d1572, 1572 [2011]; People vKelly, 71 AD3d 1520, 1520 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 775 [2010]). In anyevent, his contention is without merit inasmuch as the testimony was relevant to establishdefendant's motive and to provide relevant background information (see Thomas, 85AD3d at 1572; People v Monzon, 289 AD2d 595 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 712[2002]). By failing to object to his appearance in prison garb at trial, defendant failed to preservefor our review his contention that he was thereby denied a fair trial (see People v Walker,259 AD2d 1026, 1027 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1029 [1999]), and we decline toexercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, upon our review of the evidence, the law, and thecircumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, we rejectdefendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally Peoplev Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindleyand Sconiers, JJ.