Opinion
February 19, 1985
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the County Court erred in denying defendant's motion for the assignment of new counsel, as the application was made just prior to the commencement of the suppression hearing and no reasons were stated in support thereof. While an indigent defendant is undoubtedly entitled to the assignment of competent counsel to represent him in a criminal action, "this is not to be equated with a right to [the] choice of assigned counsel" ( People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178; see, People v Rodriguez, 98 A.D.2d 961; People v Navarro, 96 A.D.2d 1126). "`[A]s long as assigned counsel are [persons] of ability and integrity, the discretion and responsibility for their selection rest[s] with the court'" ( People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207, quoting from People v Brabson, 9 N.Y.2d 173, 181, cert denied 369 U.S. 879). Thus, while trial judges have a continuing duty to carefully evaluate complaints concerning the performance of court-appointed counsel ( see, People v Sawyer, supra, p 19), motions requesting the assignment of new counsel should not be granted casually, but for good cause shown ( see, People v Sawyer, supra, pp 18-19; People v Medina, supra, pp 207-208; People v Rodriguez, supra, p 962; see also, People v Fruehwirth, 83 A.D.2d 975). Moreover, there is no indication that defendant's assigned counsel, described by the Trial Judge as one of the most competent in his county, handled the case in other than a competent and professional manner ( see, People v Jackson, 61 A.D.2d 1071, lv denied 44 N.Y.2d 954, cert denied 439 U.S. 897; People v Belknap, 57 A.D.2d 970).
Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.