Opinion
July 28, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J., Sharpe, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Based upon the information provided to the hearing court at the time the defendant requested a one-week adjournment of the suppression hearing for the purpose of enabling him to substitute privately retained counsel in the place of the Legal Aid attorney appointed to represent him, we conclude that the denial of that application was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Tineo, 64 N.Y.2d 531, 536; People v Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264). It is particularly significant that the retained attorney, who according to the defendant's Legal Aid attorney, had told the defendant's brother he was willing to represent the defendant at the hearing, did not file a notice of appearance, nor did he submit any proof in the form of an affidavit or other documentary evidence that he could not be present at the scheduled hearing because of a prior engagement. Moreover, the Judge presiding at the hearing indicated his willingness to entertain a similar application at such time as counsel actually came before the court. We note that the same Legal Aid attorney who represented the defendant at the hearing subsequently represented him at trial, which was held months later.
In light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt established at trial, there is no possibility that the isolated comments made by the prosecutor during his summation deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.