DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied both the defendant's and his counsel's motions, prior to voir dire, to substitute counsel based upon an alleged grievance filed by the defendant against his trial counsel (see, People v. Lashaway, 187 A.D.2d 747). Whether to allow a defendant to substitute counsel is largely within the discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264). The defendant must show good cause for the substitution, and the motion must not be made merely as a dilatory tactic (see, People v. Arroyave, supra). Under the facts of this case, the action of the defendant was merely a dilatory tactic.
The Supreme Court properly refused to grant the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Where there is evidence that a prospective juror's state of mind is likely to preclude him or her from rendering an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20[b]), the juror must state unequivocally that he or she would be able to render a verdict based solely on the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v. Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361, 367; People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 77-78; People v. Davis, 248 A.D.2d 399). Here, the juror's responses, taken as a whole, established the necessary unequivocal declaration of impartiality (see, People v. Torpey, supra; People v. Blyden, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.