Opinion
570045/01.
Decided October 17, 2003.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered November 3, 2003 after a jury trial (Robert M. Stolz, J.) convicting him of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01), resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and criminal trespass in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.10[a]), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction rendered November 3, 2003 (Robert M. Stolz, J. and jury) affirmed.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J. HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's day-of-trial request for a continuance for the substitution of assigned counsel ( see, People v. Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264). The record shows that defendant, although given ample opportunity to speak, did not elaborate upon his vaguely-stated concerns about his attorney, and no reason appears to disturb the findings of the trial court, which "was in the best position to determine the genuineness of the defendant's objection to his counsel" ( People v. Smith, 192 AD2d 310, 312, affd 82 NY2d 731), that assigned counsel had provided defendant with "competent and zealous representation." Moreover, the timing of defendant's application, made just prior to jury selection, strongly suggests that it was a delaying tactic ( see, People v. Turner, 232 AD2d 256, lv denied, 89 NY2d 947).
To the extent that defendant now appears to argue that the sentence was excessive, his argument is moot inasmuch as defendant completed the jail term imposed below. In any event, considering among other factors, the violent nature of defendant's conduct and his extensive criminal background, the sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.