Opinion
June 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's claim that the court, after hearing defense counsel's description of defendant's complaints about his representation and reasons for wishing to withdraw his guilty plea as coerced and to be represented by new counsel, should have made further inquiry of defendant himself. The record shows that counsel's advice concerning the strength of the People's case was sound and his representation otherwise effective. Further, counsel's recitation was adequate to provide a "`clear picture'" of defendant's complaints with his representation and defendant's feeling that counsel's pessimism was coercive ( People v. Duncan, 205 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 825). That picture did not demonstrate good cause for a substitution ( see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824) or a basis for finding that the plea was not voluntary and knowing ( see, People v. Consalvo, 222 A.D.2d 302, lv granted 87 N.Y.2d 971; People v. Coco, 220 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 872).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.