requisite minimal inquiry in New York

2021All concur except Whalen, P.J., and Peradotto, J., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: We respectfully dissent inasmuch as we conclude that County Court conducted the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant's complaints about defense counsel prior to denying his request for new counsel. "[T]he right to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing is a valued one, and a defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon showing 'good cause for a substitution' " ( People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]).

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2025Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that the court made more than the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant's objections before properly determining that there was no good cause for the substitution of counsel ( see People v Pinkard , 191 AD3d 1333, 1335 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 36 NY3d 1123 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 NY3d 967 [2021]; see generally People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]).

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2014Inasmuch as the court “conducted the requisite searching inquiry to insure that defendant’s request to proceed pro se was accompanied by a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” (DePonceau, 96 AD3d at 1347 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we reject defendant’s further contention that he was denied the right to counsel when he proceeded pro se at his suppression and predicate felony hearings, and at sentencing.

2014Inasmuch as the court “conducted the requisite searching inquiry to insure that defendant’s request to proceed pro se was accompanied by a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” (DePonceau, 96 AD3d at 1347 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we reject defendant’s further contention that he was denied the right to counsel when he proceeded pro se at his suppression and predicate felony hearings, and at sentencing.

2018Contrary to defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his second request for new counsel, the court made more than the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant's objections before determining that there was no good cause for the substitution of counsel ( see People v Jones , 114 AD3d 1239 , 1240 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1166 [2015]), and even adjourned proceedings for a week to facilitate further communication between defense counsel and defendant.

2017The record establishes that the court made “the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant’s reasons for requesting new counsel . . . and defendant did not establish a serious complaint concerning defense counsel’s representation and thus did not suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]” (People v Jones, 114 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[T]he fact that defendant and his attorney may have disagreed with respect to . . . strategy is not sufficient to warrant a substitution” (People v Tenace, 256 AD2d 92

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a missing witness charge with respect to one of the responding police officers who testified at the suppression hearing (see generally People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180 [1994]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a missing witness charge with respect to one of the responding police officers who testified at the suppression hearing (see generally People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180 [1994]).

2017The record establishes that the court made “the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant’s reasons for requesting new counsel . . . and defendant did not establish a serious complaint concerning defense counsel’s representation and thus did not suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]” (People v Jones, 114 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[T]he fact that defendant and his attorney may have disagreed with respect to . . . strategy is not sufficient to warrant a substitution” (People v Tenace, 256 AD2d 92

2017The record establishes that the court made “the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant’s reasons for requesting new counsel . . . and defendant did not establish a serious complaint concerning defense counsel’s representation and thus did not suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]” (People v Jones, 114 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[T]he fact that defendant and his attorney may have disagreed with respect to . . . strategy is not sufficient to warrant a substitution” (People v Tenace, 256 AD2d 92

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2016A review of the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiry (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-101 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]), and properly concluded that there was no basis to substitute counsel where, as here, defendant failed to “show that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (.People v Bones, 309 AD2d 1238, 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY

2015“The court made the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant’s reasons for requesting new counsel,” but defendant failed to establish good cause for the substitution of counsel (People v Goossens, 92 AD3d 1281, 1281-1282 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 960 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015“The court made the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant’s reasons for requesting new counsel,” but defendant failed to establish good cause for the substitution of counsel (People v Goossens, 92 AD3d 1281, 1281-1282 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 960 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Defendant's contention "is encompassed by the plea . . . except to the extent that the contention implicates the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Morris , 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Seymore , 188 AD3d 1767, 1769 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1100 [2021]; People v Harris , 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).

2022We reject that contention because even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it implicates the voluntariness of the plea . . . ," we conclude that defendant "abandoned his request for new counsel when he decid[ed] . . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney" ( People v Clemons , 201 AD3d 1355, 1355 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1032 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jeffords , 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]; People v Harris , 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th

2022Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it 'implicates the voluntariness of the plea' " ( People v Jeffords , 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]), we conclude that "defendant abandoned his request for new counsel when he 'decid[ed] . . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney' " ( People v Guantero , 100 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]; see Jeffords , 185 AD3d at 1418 ; cf. People v Morris , 183 AD3d 1254, 1254-1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35

2022Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it 'implicates the voluntariness of the plea' " ( People v Jeffords , 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]), we conclude that "defendant abandoned his request for new counsel when he 'decid[ed] . . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney' " ( People v Guantero , 100 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]; see Jeffords , 185 AD3d at 1418 ; cf. People v Morris , 183 AD3d 1254, 1254-1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35

2025The record establishes that the court "allowed defendant to air his concerns about defense counsel, and after listening to them reasonably concluded that" defendant's specific complaints "had no merit or substance" ( People v Linares , 2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004]) and that "defense counsel was reasonably likely to afford . . . defendant effective assistance of counsel" ( Fulton , 210 AD3d at 1438 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025Here, to the extent that defendant made sufficiently specific factual allegations of serious complaints about defense counsel's failure to facilitate his appearance before the grand jury, we conclude that the court conducted the requisite minimal inquiry to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted ( see People v Fulton , 210 AD3d 1436 , 1438 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1154 [2023]).

2025The record establishes that the court "allowed defendant to air his concerns about defense counsel, and after listening to them reasonably concluded that" defendant's specific complaints "had no merit or substance" ( People v Linares , 2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004]) and that "defense counsel was reasonably likely to afford . . . defendant effective assistance of counsel" ( Fulton , 210 AD3d at 1438 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that the court made more than the requisite minimal inquiry into defendant's objections before properly determining that there was no good cause for the substitution of counsel ( see People v Pinkard , 191 AD3d 1333, 1335 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 36 NY3d 1123 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 NY3d 967 [2021]; see generally People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]).

2023Defendant's contention "is encompassed by the plea . . . except to the extent that the contention implicates the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Morris , 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Seymore , 188 AD3d 1767, 1769 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1100 [2021]; People v Harris , 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).

2023Defendant's contention "is encompassed by the plea . . . except to the extent that the contention implicates the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Morris , 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Seymore , 188 AD3d 1767, 1769 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1100 [2021]; People v Harris , 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).

2022It is well settled that "[w]hether counsel is substituted is within the 'discretion and responsibility' of the trial judge . . . , and a court's duty to consider such a motion is invoked only where a defendant makes a 'seemingly serious request[]' " for substitution ( People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]; see People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Gibson , 126 AD3d 1300, 1301 [4th Dept 2015]).

2022We reject that contention because even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it implicates the voluntariness of the plea . . . ," we conclude that defendant "abandoned his request for new counsel when he decid[ed] . . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney" ( People v Clemons , 201 AD3d 1355, 1355 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1032 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jeffords , 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]; People v Harris , 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th

2022Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it 'implicates the voluntariness of the plea' " ( People v Jeffords , 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]), we conclude that "defendant abandoned his request for new counsel when he 'decid[ed] . . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney' " ( People v Guantero , 100 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]; see Jeffords , 185 AD3d at 1418 ; cf. People v Morris , 183 AD3d 1254, 1254-1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35

2018We note that the court granted defendant's first request to replace trial counsel before argument of his posttrial motion, and it is well settled that "[t]he right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option" ( People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; see People v Ward , 27 AD3d 1119, 1120 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006], reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]).

2018We note that the court granted defendant's first request to replace trial counsel before argument of his posttrial motion, and it is well settled that "[t]he right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option" ( People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; see People v Ward , 27 AD3d 1119, 1120 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006], reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]).

2018We note that the court granted defendant's first request to replace trial counsel before argument of his posttrial motion, and it is well settled that "[t]he right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option" ( People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; see People v Ward , 27 AD3d 1119, 1120 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006], reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]).