Opinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Livingston County Court, Wiggins, Jr., J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied the right to be present at a material stage of the proceeding when he was excluded from a pretrial bench conference on his request for substitution of counsel. Because the record shows that the bench conference involved only questions of law or internal procedures of the Public Defender's Office, defendant's presence was not required (see, People v Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 590, 591; see also, People v Williams, 85 N.Y.2d 945; People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472). Moreover, the contention of defendant is academic because his request was granted.
Defendant further contends that reversal is warranted based on County Court's refusal to grant defense counsel's request for an adjournment of the trial. A determination whether to grant an adjournment is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284; People v Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405). Because defense counsel already had an attorney-client relationship with defendant and had over 30 days to prepare the defense, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for an adjournment (see generally, People v Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 272-273; People v Singleton, supra; People v Reynolds, 39 A.D.2d 812, 813).
We reject the contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial because he was restrained by leg shackles during trial. There was a reasonable basis for the shackles articulated in the record and, therefore, the court's determination to restrain defendant did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v Rouse, 79 N.Y.2d 934; People v Mendola, 2 N.Y.2d 270, 275; People v Johnston, 147 A.D.2d 589, 590, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 665). Furthermore, defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the shackles because the court took appropriate steps to minimize their visibility in the jury's presence (see, People v Bailey, 205 A.D.2d 789, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 822; People v Young, 185 A.D.2d 369, 370, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 935; People v Tedesco, 143 A.D.2d 155, 159, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 860).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they are without merit.