Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 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).
The defendant's disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new attorney ( see People v. Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510; People v. Jackman, 8 AD3d 678; People v. Jones, 302 AD2d 476, 477; cf. People v. Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824). Nor is there any merit to the defendant's related contention that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that he understood the risks of representing himself at trial before allowing him to proceed pro se ( cf. People v. Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103; People v. Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.