Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly determined, after a hearing, that the defendant was competent to stand trial ( see, CPL 730.10). The People sustained their burden of establishing the defendant's fitness through the expert testimony of two psychiatrists ( see, People v. Pulecio, 237 A.D.2d 633; People v. Vandemark, 225 A.D.2d 716, 717; People v. Supino, 202 A.D.2d 454; People v. Orama, 150 A.D.2d 505, 506; People v. Allen, 135 A.D.2d 823; People v. Breeden, 115 A.D.2d 484).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, neither the fact that the defense-retained psychiatrist disagreed with the conclusion of the two court-appointed experts, nor the fact that the defendant opted to reject a "black rage" insanity defense dictated a ruling that he was unfit for trial. As this Court has previously observed, "[w]here the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference [is] accorded its findings" ( People v. Gordon, 125 A.D.2d 587, 588; People v. Allen, supra, at 823; People v. Breeden, supra, at 484). In addition, the defendant's decision not to pursue an insanity defense does not, in and of itself, indicate incompetence ( see, People v. Reason, 37 N.Y.2d 351, 352-353; People v. Dyer, 128 A.D.2d 719, 720; People v. Morton, 173 A.D.2d 1081, 1084; People v. Allen, supra, at 823; People v. Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413, 414).
The court properly permitted the defendant to appear pro se, since a defendant who is competent to stand trial is necessarily competent to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se (see, People v. Reason, supra, at 353-354; People v. Schoolfield, 196 A.D.2d 111, 116).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.