scheduled suppression hearing in New York

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N

2009Furthermore, these items were not necessary for the hearing, and their absence did not make the People responsible for the delay (see People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 543 [1985]; People v Wright, 50 AD3d 429, 430 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 966 [2008]).

2004The People’s postreadiness delay in complying with their discovery obligations “had no bearing on the People’s readiness” (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 543 [1985]), since the videotape belatedly produced by the People was not the subject of the defendant’s suppression motion and did not impact upon the People’s ability to proceed meaningfully at the scheduled suppression hearing (cf. People v Simpkins, 193 Misc 2d 447 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 585 [2003]).

2022Further, the defendant presented no evidence that he had actually retained private counsel since the alleged retained counsel did not file a notice of appearance, nor did the alleged retained counsel submit any proof that he could not be present at the scheduled hearing ( see People v O'Kane , 55 AD3d 315, 316 ; People v Sanford , 122 AD2d 286, 287 ; see also People v Jackson , 151 AD3d 746, 747 ; People v Street , 59 AD3d 745 ; People v Morgan , 27 AD3d 579, 580 ).

2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48

2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48

2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48

2019Defendant's speedy trial rights would not have been affected by the requested adjournment ( see People v De Carr , 158 AD2d 912, 914 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 965 [1990]), inasmuch as the vast majority of the adjournments prior to the scheduled suppression hearing were attributable to the defendant, who either failed to appear or answered not ready on seventeen prior occasions.

2009Furthermore, these items were not necessary for the hearing, and their absence did not make the People responsible for the delay (see People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 543 [1985]; People v Wright, 50 AD3d 429, 430 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 966 [2008]).