Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In reviewing suppression issues, great weight must be accorded the hearing court's determination. Where, as here, that determination is supported by the record, it should not be disturbed (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561; People v. Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82).
We further find that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to retain private counsel, but was either unable or unwilling to do so. Court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178) and the defendant's mere statement of dissatisfaction with his experienced trial counsel did not constitute a showing of good cause. It is also apparent from the record that while the defendant's application to proceed pro se was initially granted, he thereafter changed his mind and requested an attorney. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to counsel.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.