Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prompt, on-the-scene identifications by witnesses following a defendant's arrest at or near the crime scene are generally allowed and are not categorically or presumptively condemned (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544; Matter of Darryl G., 184 A.D.2d 204). The complainant identified the defendant at the scene of the crime approximately 10 minutes after he had been arrested, 15 to 20 minutes after commission of the crime, and about 40 yards from the point of arrest. The circumstances represented one unbroken chain of events — crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension, and identification — all occurring within a limited geographic area (see, People v Hawkins, 188 A.D.2d 616; People v Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249). Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the fact that he had already made an inculpatory statement prior to being identified does not negate the existence of exigent circumstances (see, People v Duuvon, supra, at 545). In any event, any error in admitting the identification testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v Johnson, 169 A.D.2d 779, 781).
We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court's refusal to relieve assigned counsel deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. The defendant premises his contention on the allegation that defense counsel failed to take the steps necessary to comply with his desire to testify before the Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.50). It is settled law, however, 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 Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207). The defendant's bald statement was insufficient to meet his burden of establishing that his rights pursuant to CPL 190.50 were violated (see, People v Fleming, 196 A.D.2d 551; People v Richardson, 193 A.D.2d 969; People v Cipolla, 171 A.D.2d 557). In any event, even if the defendant's allegations were true, his counsel's failure to comply with his desire to testify would not, standing alone, amount to a denial of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Bundy, 186 A.D.2d 357; People v Jones, 171 A.D.2d 691; People v Hunter, 169 A.D.2d 538; People v Taylor, 165 A.D.2d 800, 801; People v Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644, 646).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 471), or without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.