We previously considered defendant's Rosario claims ( 199 A.D.2d 36, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 921), and find no basis to disturb our prior ruling. Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit since defendant should not be heard to complain about the consequences of his clearly knowing, intelligent, and voluntary election to proceed pro se.
In respect to the claim of severity of the sentence, based upon defendant's allegations of post-sentencing discovery of a terminal illness, defendant's allegations are entirely conclusory. While the People concede that defendant appears to have a brain tumor, no current information is provided about whether the tumor is malignant, whether defendant sought or received the surgery his own physician had recommended, and, if so, the outcome, and whether defendant's seizures have been prevented by medication. Defendant, a physician himself, in fact fails to provide any factually supportable allegations concerning his present condition and prognosis, which allegations, moreover, should have been presented in the first instance to Supreme Court.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.