Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not deprive him of his right to counsel at a pretrial hearing by either refusing to assign new counsel or by denying his request for a further adjournment to retain counsel of his own choosing. Nor did the court, under the circumstances presented, err in permitting him to proceed pro se with the assigned counsel standing by in an advisory capacity during the course of the hearing.
While an indigent defendant has a right to a court-appointed lawyer, he does not have the right to his choice of assigned counsel (see, People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12). A defendant must show "[g]ood cause" before the court will substitute counsel (People v Sawyer, supra, at 19; People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199). The defendant failed to make the requisite showing, his only objection being that counsel had advised him to accept a plea offer. Furthermore, he was given ample opportunity to obtain private counsel but was either unwilling or unable to do so.
The record reveals that the court made the requisite "`searching inquiry'" to determine that the defendant appreciated the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se (People v Sawyer, supra, at 21; Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806). Indeed, the defendant, a 25-year-old radio producer, articulated on the record his own concern with proceeding without counsel. Thus, his subsequent waiver of counsel was certainly "`knowing and intelligent'" (People v Sawyer, supra, at 21; People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10). The defendant was represented by counsel of his own choosing throughout the trial.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.