Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself. The exercise of this right requires an unequivocal request ( see, People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17), which was lacking in this case. A review of the defendant's motion reveals that it was actually a motion to relieve his trial counsel and not a motion to proceed pro se. As such, the defendant's motion "appears to be based on his disapproval of counsel rather than constituting an unequivocal `knowing and voluntary election to forego the benefit of an attorney and proceed pro se'" ( People v. Jones, 187 A.D.2d 750, 751, quoting People v. Hacker, 167 A.D.2d 729, 730).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The remaining contentions in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.