"[W]here a defendant makes a seemingly serious request for new counsel, the court must make some minimal inquiry to determine whether the claim is meritorious" ( People v. Robinson , 195 A.D.3d 1527, 1528, 148 N.Y.S.3d 314 [4th Dept. 2021] ; seePeople v. Sides , 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824-825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ). Here, defendant's motion seeking the assignment of new counsel contained "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about trial strategy" ( People v. Brady , 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 140 N.Y.S.3d 846 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 522, 170 N.E.3d 396 [2021] ) and that defense counsel was ineffective (seePeople v. Barnes , 156 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 67 N.Y.S.3d 373 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078, 79 N.Y.S.3d 99, 103 N.E.3d 1246 [2018] ), as well as "general assertions of dissatisfaction with defense counsel's representation" ( People v. Lewicki , 118 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1064, 994 N.Y.S.2d 323, 18 N.E.3d 1144 [2014] ). Therefore, defendant did not make the requisite "seemingly serious request" to warrant an inquiry as to whether he was entitled to assignment of substitute counsel ( Robinson , 195 A.D.3d at 1528, 148 N.Y.S.3d 314 ; seeBrady , 192 A.D.3d at 1558, 140 N.Y.S.3d 846 ; Lewicki , 118 A.D.3d at 1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 ). Furthermore, we conclude that, "[b]y making only a general motion to dismiss the charges ... after the People rested their case ..., and by failing to renew ... the moti

"[W]here a defendant makes a seemingly serious request for new counsel, the court must make some minimal inquiry to determine whether the claim is meritorious" (People v Robinson, 195 A.D.3d 1527, 1528 [4th Dept 2021]; see People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). Here, defendant's motion seeking the assignment of new counsel contained "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about trial strategy" (People v Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954 [2021]) and that defense counsel was ineffective (see People v Barnes, 156 A.D.3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078 [2018]), as well as "general assertions of dissatisfaction with defense counsel's representation" (People v Lewicki, 118 A.D.3d 1328, 1329 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1064 [2014]). Therefore, defendant did not make the requisite "seemingly serious request" to warrant an inquiry as to whether he was entitled to assignment of substitute counsel (Robinson, 195 A.D.3d at 1528; see Brady, 192 A.D.3d at 1558; Lewicki, 118 A.D.3d at 1329).

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1557 (Monroe)

At an appearance shortly thereafter, defendant informed the court that he and one of his attorneys had engaged in a "very constructive conversation." Upon defendant's subsequent pro se motion for substitution, the court again conducted an inquiry in which it permitted defendant "to articulate his complaints about defense counsel" (People v Jones, 173 A.D.3d 1628, 1630 [4th Dept 2019]), following which the court properly denied defendant's request, inasmuch as good cause for substitution does not exist where, as here, "on the eve of trial, disagreements over trial strategy generate discord" (People v Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 511 [2004]; see People v Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 101-102 [2010]; People v Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954 [2021]).

Under the specific circumstances of this case (see People v Linares, 2 N.Y.3d at 510), County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the foregoing application, albeit implicitly, as defendant failed to demonstrate "good cause" for substituting in a fourth attorney (People v Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 588, 593 [2012]; see People v Benjamin, 203 A.D.3d 617, 617 [2022]; People v Abussalam, 196 A.D.3d 1000, 1007 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1144 [2021]; People v Harris, 166 A.D.3d 801, 801-802 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1205 [2019]; People v Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1440-1441 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001 [2016]). Defendant's subsequent requests to substitute counsel were no more than reiterated or otherwise generic complaints, and therefore no further inquiry from the court was warranted (see People v Johnson, 195 A.D.3d 859, 861 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1097 [2021]; People v Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954 [2021]; People v Harris, 151 A.D.3d 1720, 1721 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 950 [2017]). Turning to the performance of defendant's various attorneys, his first allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel concerns the foregoing CPL 190.50 matter.

egoing application, albeit implicitly, as defendant failed to demonstrate "good cause" for substituting in a fourth attorney ( People v. Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 588, 593, 942 N.Y.S.2d 5, 965 N.E.2d 232 [2012] ; seePeople v. Benjamin, 203 A.D.3d 617, 617, 162 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2022] ; People v. Abussalam, 196 A.D.3d 1000, 1007, 151 N.Y.S.3d 743 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1144, 159 N.Y.S.3d 347, 180 N.E.3d 511 [2021] ; People v. Harris, 166 A.D.3d 801, 801–802, 87 N.Y.S.3d 235 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1205, 99 N.Y.S.3d 247, 122 N.E.3d 1159 [2019] ; People v. Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1440–1441, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016] ). Defendant's subsequent requests to substitute counsel were no more than reiterated or otherwise generic complaints, and therefore no further inquiry from the court was warranted (seePeople v. Johnson , 195 A.D.3d 859, 861, 145 N.Y.S.3d 844 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1097, 156 N.Y.S.3d 792, 178 N.E.3d 439 [2021] ; People v. Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 140 N.Y.S.3d 846 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 522, 170 N.E.3d 396 [2021] ; People v. Harris, 151 A.D.3d 1720, 1721, 55 N.Y.S.3d 844 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 950, 67 N.Y.S.3d 133, 89 N.E.3d 523 [2017] ). Turning to the performance of defendant's various attorneys, his first allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel concerns the foregoing CPL 190.50 matter.

Defendant "failed to proffer specific allegations of a ‘seemingly serious request’ that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry" ( People v. Porto , 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010] ; seePeople v. Morris , 183 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 123 N.Y.S.3d 784 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1047, 127 N.Y.S.3d 838, 151 N.E.3d 519 [2020] ). Rather, defendant made only " ‘vague assertions that defense counsel was not in frequent contact with him and did not aid in his defense’ " ( People v. Jones , 149 A.D.3d 1576, 1577, 52 N.Y.S.3d 804 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1129, 64 N.Y.S.3d 679, 86 N.E.3d 571 [2017] ) and "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about ... strategy" ( People v. Brady , 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 140 N.Y.S.3d 846 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 522, 170 N.E.3d 396 [2021] ). In any event, we conclude that the court "conducted the requisite ‘minimal inquiry’ to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted" ( People v. Chess , 162 A.D.3d 1577, 1579, 79 N.Y.S.3d 433 [4th Dept. 2018], quoting People v. Sides , 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ).

Defendant "failed to proffer specific allegations of a 'seemingly serious request' that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry" (People v Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100 [2010]; see People v Morris, 183 A.D.3d 1254, 1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1047 [2020]). Rather, defendant made only" 'vague assertions that defense counsel was not in frequent contact with him and did not aid in his defense'" (People v Jones, 149 A.D.3d 1576, 1577 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1129 [2017]) and "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about... strategy" (People v Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954 [2021]). In any event, we conclude that the court "conducted the requisite 'minimal inquiry' to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted" (People v Chess, 162 A.D.3d 1577, 1579 [4th Dept 2018], quoting People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825 [1990]).

Defendant "failed to proffer specific allegations of a 'seemingly serious request' that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry" (People v Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100 [2010]; see People v Morris, 183 A.D.3d 1254, 1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1047 [2020]). Rather, defendant made only" 'vague assertions that defense counsel was not in frequent contact with him and did not aid in his defense'" (People v Jones, 149 A.D.3d 1576, 1577 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1129 [2017]) and "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about... strategy" (People v Brady, 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954 [2021]). In any event, we conclude that the court "conducted the requisite 'minimal inquiry' to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted" (People v Chess, 162 A.D.3d 1577, 1579 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 936 [2018], quoting People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825 [1990]).

Defendant "failed to proffer specific allegations of a ‘seemingly serious request’ that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry" ( People v. Porto , 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010] ; seePeople v. Morris , 183 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 123 N.Y.S.3d 784 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1047, 127 N.Y.S.3d 838, 151 N.E.3d 519 [2020] ). Rather, defendant made only " ‘vague assertions that defense counsel was not in frequent contact with him and did not aid in his defense’ " ( People v. Jones , 149 A.D.3d 1576, 1577, 52 N.Y.S.3d 804 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1129, 64 N.Y.S.3d 679, 86 N.E.3d 571 [2017]) and "conclusory assertions that he and defense counsel disagreed about ... strategy" ( People v. Brady , 192 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 140 N.Y.S.3d 846 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 522, 170 N.E.3d 396 [2021] ). In any event, we conclude that the court "conducted the requisite ‘minimal inquiry’ to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted" ( People v. Chess , 162 A.D.3d 1577, 1579, 79 N.Y.S.3d 433 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 936 [2018], quoting People v. Sides , 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ).