Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for an adjournment which was purportedly needed to secure the presence of two character witnesses. In the instant case, there was no showing of a diligent and good-faith attempt on the part of the defendant to insure the appearance of the proposed character witnesses at trial (see, People v. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632). Furthermore, the record indicates that the witnesses were unavailable to testify even on the day to which adjournment was sought (see, People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476; People v. Meaney, 154 A.D.2d 555).
This court has already considered and rejected the defendant's contention that a verdict convicting a defendant of assault in the first degree based on the intentional infliction of serious physical injury (Penal Law § 120.10) and assault in the first degree based on the creation of a risk of death (Penal Law § 120.10) is repugnant or inconsistent (People v. Moloi, 135 A.D.2d 576). Nothing raised by the defendant requires a different result. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.