DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request, made on the eve of trial, for the substitution of trial counsel. The defendant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing before trial (see, People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271), and the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant's request was a delaying tactic is supported by the record (see, People v. Tineo, 64 N.Y.2d 531; People v. Robinson, 285 A.D.2d 478 [2d Dept., July 2, 2001]; People v. Gloster, 175 A.D.2d 258).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the prosecution's opening statement and summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641) or without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.