The court properly denied defendant's application for substitution of counsel since defendant failed to show good cause for such substitution (see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822). The strategic disagreement between defendant and counsel concerning counsel's handling of the competency issue was not a "conflict" requiring substitution. In any event, were we to find that substitution should have been granted, we would find the error to be harmless because counsel was ultimately replaced, well in advance of trial, by a different Legal Aid Society attorney with whom defendant expressed no dissatisfaction.
Contrary to defendant's appellate contention, the record establishes that despite mistaken use of terminology, the participants understood that the purpose of the proceeding conducted prior to sentencing was to determine whether defendant should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.10 and CPL 400.20. Defendant's argument that the procedural requirements were not followed is unpreserved ( People v. Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992, 994), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find substantial compliance with those requirements (People v. McGourty, 188 A.D.2d 679 lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 843).
ROSENBERGER, J.P., TOM, MAZZARELLI, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.