Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for the substitution of counsel since the defendant failed to show good cause for the substitution, and the circumstances demonstrated that the application was made merely as a dilatory tactic ( see People v Robinson, 285 AD2d 478; People v. Brown, 253 AD2d 826).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the mere fact that the resentence imposed after trial was greater than that offered during plea negotiations was no indication that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial ( see People v. Carillo, 297 AD2d 288, 289; People v. Bellilli, 270 AD2d 355). Further, the Supreme Court properly considered all relevant circumstances before imposing resentence ( see People v. Medina, 140 AD2d 549, 550; People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.