PEOPLE v. SMITH (1997)

 We reject the contention of defendant that his right to counsel was violated when County Court refused his request to assign new counsel.  “The right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option” (People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233;  see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133, affg. 83 A.D.2d 205, 443 N.Y.S.2d 926, rearg. dismissed 57 N.Y.2d 776, 454 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 440 N.E.2d 1343, cert. denied 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024).

 Defendant requested new assigned counsel, claiming that he did not trust his assigned counsel because he was a former employee of the District Attorney's office and was “working together” with the prosecutor.   Defense counsel's former employment at the District Attorney's office does not establish a conflict of interest that constitutes good cause for substitution of counsel (see, People v. Sawyer, supra, 83 A.D.2d, at 208, 443 N.Y.S.2d 926;  People v. Simmons, 156 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 549 N.Y.S.2d 294, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 924, 555 N.Y.S.2d 43, 554 N.E.2d 80).   Thus, the court's inquiry, in the circumstances of this case, was sufficient to protect defendant's right to counsel (see, People v. Thornton [appeal No. 1], 167 A.D.2d 935, 562 N.Y.S.2d 900, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1082, 577 N.Y.S.2d 245, 583 N.E.2d 957;  People v. Gensicki, 123 A.D.2d 214, 215, 510 N.Y.S.2d 750, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 646, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 512 N.E.2d 564).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: