erred in denying defense in New York

2023That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not join in defense counsel's requests ( see People v Nwajei , 151 AD3d 1963 , 1963 [4th Dept 2017] , lv denied 29 NY3d 1131 [2017]; People v Youngblood , 294 AD2d 954, 955 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 704 [2002]).

2017Defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying defense counsel’s request after the conclusion of the hearing to be relieved of his assignment is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not join in defense counsel’s request (see People v Youngblood, 294 AD2d 954, 955 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 704 [2002]; cf. People v Tineo, 64 NY2d 531, 535-536 [1985]).

2024That contention "survives the plea and the valid waiver of the right to appeal to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Chapman , 179 AD3d 1526, 1527 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]; see generally Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255 ).

2024That contention "survives the plea and the valid waiver of the right to appeal to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Chapman , 179 AD3d 1526, 1527 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]; see generally Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255 ).

2022It is well settled that the determination whether to grant an adjournment of sentencing rests within the sound discretion of the court and should not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion ( see People v Hernandez , 192 AD3d 1528 , 1532 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 957 [2021]; see generally People v Spears , 24 NY3d 1057, 1059-1060 [2014]).

2021Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as she did not join in that application ( see People v Harris , 151 AD3d 1720, 1720 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 950 [2017]; cf. People v Hunter , 171 AD3d 1534 , 1535 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1105 [2019]).

2018The court erred in denying defense counsel's for-cause challenges to two prospective jurors whose statements during voir dire suggested that they were predisposed to believe that an indictment is an indication of guilt ( see People v Barber , 269 AD2d 758, 760 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Brown , 111 AD2d 248 , 249 [2d Dept 1985]).

2017Defendant waived his further contention that the court thereafter erred in granting defense counsel’s peremptory challenge with respect to that sworn juror inasmuch as defendant requested that the court perform the very act that he now contends was error (see generally People v Richardson, 88 NY2d 1049, 1051 [1996]; People v Rush, 148 AD3d 1601, 1604 [4th Dept 2017], lv granted 29 NY3d 1133 [2017]).

2017In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request, given the timing of the request (see generally People v O’Daniel, 24 NY3d 134, 138 [2014]; People v Arroyare, 49 NY2d 264, 271-272 [1980]), and the fact that it was based on defense counsel’s frustration with defendant’s refusal to accept counsel’s recommendation with respect to a plea offer (see People v Woodring, 48 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 846 [2008]).

2017Defendant waived his further contention that the court thereafter erred in granting defense counsel’s peremptory challenge with respect to that sworn juror inasmuch as defendant requested that the court perform the very act that he now contends was error (see generally People v Richardson, 88 NY2d 1049, 1051 [1996]; People v Rush, 148 AD3d 1601, 1604 [4th Dept 2017], lv granted 29 NY3d 1133 [2017]).

2017In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request, given the timing of the request (see generally People v O’Daniel, 24 NY3d 134, 138 [2014]; People v Arroyare, 49 NY2d 264, 271-272 [1980]), and the fact that it was based on defense counsel’s frustration with defendant’s refusal to accept counsel’s recommendation with respect to a plea offer (see People v Woodring, 48 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 846 [2008]).

2017Defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying defense counsel’s request after the conclusion of the hearing to be relieved of his assignment is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not join in defense counsel’s request (see People v Youngblood, 294 AD2d 954, 955 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 704 [2002]; cf. People v Tineo, 64 NY2d 531, 535-536 [1985]).

2017In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request, given the timing of the request (see generally People v O’Daniel, 24 NY3d 134, 138 [2014]; People v Arroyare, 49 NY2d 264, 271-272 [1980]), and the fact that it was based on defense counsel’s frustration with defendant’s refusal to accept counsel’s recommendation with respect to a plea offer (see People v Woodring, 48 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 846 [2008]).