Opinion
(1043) KA 00-01288.
September 28, 2001.
(Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.)
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, WISNER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court properly denied defendant's motion for new assigned counsel. "The right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option" ( People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824; see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, rearg dismissed 57 N.Y.2d 776, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178). Here, the court made an appropriate inquiry and determined that there was no good cause for substitution of assigned counsel ( see, People v. Kirkman, 269 A.D.2d 808, 808-809, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 836; cf., People v. Sides, supra, at 824-825). Defendant further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to request a Wade hearing to determine whether the photo array was unduly suggestive. Defendant failed to establish that there was no legitimate explanation for that failure ( see, People v. Stauffer, 202 A.D.2d 1041, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 915; People v. De Pillo, 168 A.D.2d 899, 900, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 965). The witness who viewed the photo array and identified defendant at trial had an independent basis for her identification, and counsel could have concluded that any motion to suppress the identification would have been unsuccessful ( see, People v. Claitt, 222 A.D.2d 1038, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Barlow, 222 A.D.2d 1123, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 876). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.