Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We conclude that the defendant's right to counsel was adequately protected. As the trial court was in the best position to determine the genuineness of the defendant's objection to his attorney (see, People v. Smith, 192 A.D.2d 310, affd 82 N.Y.2d 731), on this record we are satisfied that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for the assignment of new counsel. The defendant's request on its face failed to establish good cause for a substitution of counsel such that a meaningful inquiry was required (see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822). In any event, the court inquired into the basis for the request and was free to regard as insufficient the defendant's conclusory claim that he lacked confidence in his attorney in denying the request (see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199; People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who committed the murder is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Hemphill, 187 A.D.2d 728). In any event, viewing the evidence 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 [5]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.