These include, according to a New York court, the determination whether to seek a severance. People v. Marcotte, 655 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). This is the only decision that the writer has been able to find which speaks directly to the issue of severance in this context.
In any event, the challenged remarks were either responsive to the defense counsel's summation or fair comment upon the evidence ( see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Almonte, supra at 394). Viewing the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Marcotte, 237 AD2d 379). "Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel" ( People v Gonzalez, 22 AD3d 597, 598; see People v Benevento, supra at 712-713). The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for resentencing in accordance herewith. The defense counsel presented a "coherent, cogent defense" ( People v. Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176; see People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146; People v. Marcotte, 237 AD2d 379). Viewing defense counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was afforded effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v. Baldi, supra; People v. Finch, 199 AD2d 278; People v. Daniels, 185 AD2d 894). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial.
The defendant's disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new attorney ( see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824; People v. Willam Jones, 302 A.D.2d 476; affd 2 N.Y.3d 235; People v. Marcotte, 237 A.D.2d 379). The defendant's contention that the evidence presented as to the second and third counts of the indictment, charging grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, respectively, was legally insufficient to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $1,000 has not been preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05).
The defendant's disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish good cause for assignment of a new attorney (see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824; People v. Banks, 265 A.D.2d 163; People v. Marcotte, 237 A.D.2d 379). ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.