DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request to proceed pro se after conducting an adequate inquiry as to whether the decision to waive the right to counsel was made intelligently and voluntarily ( see People v. Johnson, 120 A.D.2d 816). Indeed, we are satisfied by the defendant's responses to the Supreme Court's inquiry that his true motivation for making the request was to delay the trial.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not assume the role of prosecutor when it questioned the defendant at his second felony offender hearing. The Supreme Court's questions were properly aimed at developing significant facts and clarifying confusing issues ( see People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67; People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523). Thus, the defendant was not denied his right to an unbiased fact-finder.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.