Opinion
September 28, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced under Indictment No. 95-01860 in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
Moreover, a decision to appoint new counsel is entirely within the trial court's discretion, and a defendant must show "good cause" before a court will consider reassignment of counsel ( see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207-208; People v. Rua, 198 A.D.2d 311, 312). In deciding whether good cause exists, the court must conduct a careful inquiry to determine whether the defendant unduly delayed in seeking new assignment and whether present counsel is likely to afford the defendant effective assistance. The court also must consider conflicts of interest and other irreconcilable differences ( see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824; People v. Medina, supra, People v. Rua, supra). A defendant is not entitled to new counsel unless his request has, a genuine basis. A mere general expression of dissatisfaction is insufficient ( see, People v. Bailey, 224 A.D.2d 435; People v. Maldonado, 178 A.D.2d 554, 555). Applying these principles, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for new counsel.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.