DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During a break in voir dire, the defendant's counsel, in the defendant's absence, explained to the trial court that she had certain concerns about her ability to represent the defendant. However, the trial court refused to relieve her as counsel. Contrary to the contention of the defendant, who never expressed any dissatisfaction with his counsel ( see People v. Folk, 145 A.D.2d 505; People v. Brown, 143 A.D.2d 1026), the trial court did not deprive him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to question him about the attorney-client relationship.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting the prosecutor's application for a recess during the direct examination of the complaining witness ( see People v. Branch, 83 N.Y.2d 663, 667; People v. Smith, 240 A.D.2d 949, 950; People v. Esquilin, 236 A.D.2d 231).
Furthermore, the trial court, after making a "reasonably thorough inquiry" into the matter (CPL 270.35[a]), providently exercised its discretion in discharging a sworn juror on the ground that she was unavailable for continued service ( see CPL 270.35; People v. Jackson, 240 A.D.2d 680, 681; People v. Hill, 182 A.D.2d 640).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.