PEOPLE v. GREGORY (2019)

OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.  The trial court concluded—based upon, among other things, its own observations of defendant's conduct throughout these lengthy proceedings and the testimony of defendant's attending physician—that defendant engaged in malingering insofar as he was competent to proceed but persisted in his efforts to avoid trial.  Inasmuch as defendant “engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues,” we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to proceed pro se (People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 [1974]).  Moreover, the existence of record support for the determination of the courts below that the pursuit of defendant by the police was justified by a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity forecloses our further review of that issue (People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 [1976];  see People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444, 447–448, 591 N.Y.S.2d 823, 606 N.E.2d 951 [1992]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.