Opinion
October 24, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to relieve assigned counsel and appoint a new attorney to represent him. We disagree. The defendant made his motion just before the commencement of trial, after previously having had assigned to him three different counsel, and failed to articulate any compelling reason to justify a last minute delay which the assignment of a new counsel would have required (see, People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199; People v Williams, 114 A.D.2d 870, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 766). It is settled that court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown (see, People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 457 U.S. 1178; People v Bold, 125 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 877).
The defendant's claim that the court erred in permitting him to proceed pro se is similarly without merit. The record indicates that the defendant timely and unequivocally asserted his right to defend himself pro se (see, People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17). The court granted his request after an extensive inquiry, and appointed counsel to sit with the defendant during trial and be available to him as a legal advisor (see, People v Knatz, 124 A.D.2d 597, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 882; People v Lee, 116 A.D.2d 590). The defendant was given the opportunity to reconsider his desire to proceed pro se on a number of occasions, each time insisting, however, that he wanted to represent himself. The trial court warned the defendant forcefully that he did not have the training or knowledge to adequately cross-examine the People's key witnesses and that the court could not assist him with his defense (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775, 776). The defendant nevertheless insisted on proceeding pro se. On this record, there was a sufficient showing that the defendant's decision was knowing and voluntary (see, People v McIntyre, supra).
We have examined the defendant's other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.