Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Jonathan McNitt, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [former (3) ] ), resisting arrest (§ 205.30), and disorderly conduct (§ 240.20[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for new counsel ( see generally People v. Rolfe, 83 A.D.3d 1219, 1220, 920 N.Y.S.2d 856,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 809, 929 N.Y.S.2d 569, 953 N.E.2d 807). The record establishes that the court made a sufficient inquiry and determined that there was no good cause for substitution ( see generally People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 510–511, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence testimony regarding an uncharged crime ( see People v. Thomas, 85 A.D.3d 1572, 1572, 925 N.Y.S.2d 287;People v. Kelly, 71 A.D.3d 1520, 1520, 897 N.Y.S.2d 353,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 775, 907 N.Y.S.2d 464, 933 N.E.2d 1057). In any event, his contention is without merit inasmuch as the testimony was relevant to establish defendant's motive and to provide relevant background information ( see Thomas, 85 A.D.3d at 1572, 925 N.Y.S.2d 287;People v. Monzon, 289 A.D.2d 595, 735 N.Y.S.2d 810,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 712, 749 N.Y.S.2d 9, 778 N.E.2d 560). By failing to object to his appearance in prison garb at trial, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was thereby denied a fair trial ( see People v. Walker, 259 A.D.2d 1026, 1027, 688 N.Y.S.2d 326,lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 1029, 697 N.Y.S.2d 588, 719 N.E.2d 949), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). Finally, upon our review of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, we reject defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.