Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying his motion to substitute assigned counsel. Although the right to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing is a valued one, an indigent defendant does not have the right to the appointment of successive lawyers absent a showing of good cause for the substitution (see, People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822; People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178). In this case, the defendant's generalized assertion that assigned counsel was not "properly taking care of" him, did not constitute such good cause (see, People v Sawyer, supra; People v Thornton, 167 A.D.2d 935). Moreover, while the defendant further claimed that assigned counsel had failed to make a pretrial investigation or appropriate suppression motions, the court's inquiry was sufficient to establish that these claims were groundless.
The defendant's further challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997; People v Esposito, 157 A.D.2d 850). In any event, upon our review of the record we find that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a potential justification defense (cf., People v Riley, 91 A.D.2d 671). Moreover, the defendant's account of the stabbing of his victim spelled out the requisite elements of manslaughter in the first degree, and negated the prospect of a justification defense (see, People v Carmona, 111 A.D.2d 930; see also, People v Major, 116 A.D.2d 594; People v Doctor, 98 A.D.2d 780).
Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find either that they are not properly before this court (see, People v Ghee, 153 A.D.2d 954), or are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.