Opinion
2001-02250.
Argued May 19, 2003.
November 24, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered February 27, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, Sharon Y. Brodt, James A. Dolan, and Brian J. Michels of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During a break in voir dire, the defendant's counsel, in the defendant's absence, explained to the trial court that she had certain concerns about her ability to represent the defendant. However, the trial court refused to relieve her as counsel. Contrary to the contention of the defendant, who never expressed any dissatisfaction with his counsel ( see People v. Folk, 145 A.D.2d 505; People v. Brown, 143 A.D.2d 1026), the trial court did not deprive him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to question him about the attorney-client relationship.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting the prosecutor's application for a recess during the direct examination of the complaining witness ( see People v. Branch, 83 N.Y.2d 663, 667; People v. Smith, 240 A.D.2d 949, 950; People v. Esquilin, 236 A.D.2d 231).
Furthermore, the trial court, after making a "reasonably thorough inquiry" into the matter (CPL 270.35[a]), providently exercised its discretion in discharging a sworn juror on the ground that she was unavailable for continued service ( see CPL 270.35; People v. Jackson, 240 A.D.2d 680, 681; People v. Hill, 182 A.D.2d 640).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.