PEOPLE v. GRAY (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (April A. Newbauer, J.), rendered May 13, 2022, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for assignment of new counsel.  Defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to voice his concerns about his attorney, and his vague and generalized complaints did not raise any conflict that provided good cause for substitution or warrant further inquiry (see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100–101, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010];  People v. Hopkins, 67 A.D.3d 471, 471, 889 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 771, 898 N.Y.S.2d 103, 925 N.E.2d 108 [2010]).  The fact that defendant made his request on the eve of trial, upon learning that the case would proceed to trial the following day, strongly suggested that the request was a delay tactic (see People v. Zuniga, 149 A.D.3d 660, 660, 53 N.Y.S.3d 53 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1136, 64 N.Y.S.3d 686, 86 N.E.3d 578 [2017]).  Even if defendant had filed a grievance against his attorney, which was not established by the record, “any conflict was of defendant's own making, and he was not entitled to circumvent the good cause requirement by creating an artificial conflict” (People v. Walton, 14 A.D.3d 419, 420, 788 N.Y.S.2d 107 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 796, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005];  see also People v. Ferrer, 166 A.D.3d 406, 407, 85 N.Y.S.3d 71 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1171, 97 N.Y.S.3d 632, 121 N.E.3d 260 [2019]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]).  There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its resolution of any inconsistencies in the testimony.  The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant was the individual who shot at the complainant with a gun, and it could reasonably be inferred from the building's video surveillance footage and the DNA evidence that the firearm recovered by the police in the backyard was the gun that defendant used in the shooting.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.