PEOPLE v. BRUNO (2020)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered June 6, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a prison term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's expressions of dissatisfaction with his third assigned attorney, near the end of the trial, and his declaration that he was hiring private counsel, did not constitute a “seemingly serious request” for new counsel, and thus the court was not required to make a “minimal inquiry” (People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010] ).  While the court did not make a direct inquiry, and expressed its inclination to deny any substitution of counsel, defendant nevertheless received a significant opportunity to explain his position and was not prevented from making any explanations (see e.g. People v. Rodriguez, 46 A.D.3d 396, 848 N.Y.S.2d 94 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 844, 859 N.Y.S.2d 402, 889 N.E.2d 89 [2008] ).  Defendant's comments were neither indicative of good cause for a substitution of counsel (see Porto, 16 N.Y.3d at 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283), nor sufficiently compelling to require substitution at such a late stage (see People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393 [1980] ).

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.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.