PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

County Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant did not establish good cause for substitution of counsel at sentencing ( see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207-208). When the court conducted the appropriate inquiry into the basis for defendant's request for substitution ( cf., People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824-825), defendant responded that he was not satisfied with defense counsel's services. Although defense counsel admitted to the court that by the time of sentencing there had been a complete breakdown in communication with defendant, it is evident from the record that "[a]ny communication problem between counsel and the defendant was caused by the defendant's uncooperative attitude" ( People v. Jessup, 266 A.D.2d 313, 314, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 921) and that defendant's request was intended to "delay the orderly administration of justice" ( People v. Sides, supra, at 824). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.