Opinion
February 14, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment under indictment No. 2054/83 is modified, on the law, by reducing the minimum term of imprisonment imposed to 1 1/3 years; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 5042/84 is affirmed.
The hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request for the assignment of new counsel inasmuch as the court "carefully evaluated" the defendant's complaint (People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207), and properly concluded that the basis for the request, i.e., that the defendant's attorney had engaged in plea negotiations and the defendant believed this was not in his "best * * * interest", did not constitute "good cause" for dismissal (see, People v Peterkin, 133 A.D.2d 472; People v Bold, 125 A.D.2d 583). Indeed, after a lengthy colloquy with the court and counsel, during which the court explained to the defendant counsel's obligation to both communicate offers made by the prosecution and make recommendations thereon, the defendant, in essence, withdrew his request.
The defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea under indictment No. 5042/84 is unpreserved for appellate review by reason of his failure to have moved to vacate that plea prior to the imposition of sentence. In any event, the record reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived both his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, 830, cert denied 423 U.S. 873; see, People v Smith, 145 A.D.2d 517; People v Seaberg, 139 A.D.2d 53; People v Feingold, 125 A.D.2d 587) and the defense of justification (see, People v Riley, 91 A.D.2d 671; People v Corrado, 65 A.D.2d 760).
We perceive of no basis to modify the sentence imposed on the manslaughter conviction, particularly since the defendant received the sentence for which he bargained (see, People v La Lande, 104 A.D.2d 1052). The sentence imposed for violation of probation on his conviction for attempted robbery in the third degree is, however, illegal, for, upon the imposition of a maximum term of imprisonment of 4 years, the permissible minimum is 1 1/3 years, not 1 1/2 years (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [e]; 3 [b]). We therefore modify the minimum term imposed by the sentencing court under indictment No. 2054/83 to 1 1/3 years (see, People v Pizzano, 127 A.D.2d 858). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.