Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to substitute new counsel in place of his assigned counsel on the day of trial (see, People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 206-207; People v Taitt, 146 A.D.2d 658). The defendant, who first made known his dissatisfaction with counsel and requested new counsel on the first day of the trial, claimed that his counsel had no confidence in his case and had urged him to accept a plea bargain offered by the prosecutor. These allegations did not constitute good cause for substitution (see, People v Medina, supra; People v Taitt, supra).
In addition, we find no basis in the record warranting modification of the defendant's sentence. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court took into consideration all the relevant criteria before imposing a sentence, which was within the permitted statutory range (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.