Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Appellant proceeded pro se at the trial of this contested matrimonial action. His claim on appeal that he should not have been permitted to represent himself since he had an attorney is a misstatement of fact. The record clearly indicates that appellant's prior counsel had been properly relieved or had withdrawn (CPLR 321).
Furthermore, it is well established that a party is entitled to self-representation (CPLR 321; People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10). Appellant unequivocally and timely asserted his request, he intelligently and knowingly waived the right to counsel, and the trial was conducted in a fair and orderly manner (see, People v. McIntyre, supra; Hochman v Hochman, NYLJ, Apr. 8, 1981, p 12, col 4). Therefore, appellant was properly admitted to proceed pro se (see, O'Reilly v New York Times Co., 692 F.2d 863). He may not now be heard to complain that he was prejudiced as a result thereof. Gibbons, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.