Opinion
April 24, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him an adjournment so that he could substitute new counsel. We disagree. The record indicates that defendant's trial counsel was the fourth attorney assigned to represent him, that the defendant made his motion to substitute new counsel after the People rested their case, and that the defendant failed to articulate a compelling reason to justify the last-minute delay which the substitution of 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). The record also reveals that the trial court was willing to permit the substitution provided it did not create any delay but that the defendant's proposed new counsel was not ready to proceed with the case as scheduled. 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 459 U.S. 1178; People v. Bold, 125 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 877). Under the circumstances presented in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant's motion to substitute new counsel (see, People v Tineo, 64 N.Y.2d 531).
The defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial by the submission to the jury of a verdict sheet containing the elements of the crimes charged is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Battles, 141 A.D.2d 748; People v Rodriguez, 144 A.D.2d 598; cf., People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208), and we decline to consider it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.