At that hearing, defendant conferred with counsel several times and, despite being given an opportunity, declined to address the court about his concerns. Supreme Court directly asked defendant if he was making any application at that time, to which he replied, "Absolutely not" (seePeople v. Stedge, 135 A.D.3d 1174, 1176, 24 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2016] ; see alsoPeople v. Nieves, 166 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 88 N.Y.S.3d 703 [2018], lvs denied 33 N.Y.3d 975, 979, 101 N.Y.S.3d 231, 124 N.E.3d 720 [2019] ). On the eve of trial, defendant again suggested that he wanted new counsel assigned, this time asserting that his counsel had a potential conflict of interest due to a decade-old prior representation of an individual that may or may not be the adult child of one of the victims.
As to the issues raised upon defendant's direct appeal, by pleading guilty, defendant – who then was represented by counsel (comparePeople v. Trapani, 162 A.D.3d 1121, 1122–1123, 78 N.Y.S.3d 745 [2018] ) – "forfeited any claim that he was denied his right to appear before the grand jury" ( People v. Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 98 N.Y.S.3d 664 [2019] ; seePeople v. Nieves, 166 A.D.3d 1380, 1381 n., 88 N.Y.S.3d 703 [2018], lvs denied 33 N.Y.3d 975, 979, 101 N.Y.S.3d 231, 234, 124 N.E.3d 720, 723 [2019]). Contrary to defendant's assertion, he had no constitutional right to testify before the grand jury, and "[t]he various risks and benefits that must be considered render the decision of whether to exercise this statutory right an appropriate one for the lawyer, not the client" ( People v. Hogan, 26 N.Y.3d 779, 786, 28 N.Y.S.3d 1, 48 N.E.3d 58 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).