People v. HaithPeople v. Haith
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The element of physical injury was established by evidence that defendant repeatedly
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant‘s requests for substitute counsel since defendant failed to establish good cause (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507 [2004]). In each instance, the court conducted a proper inquiry by asking defendant to furnish particulars about his counsel‘s alleged deficiencies, but defendant was unable to do so. After exploring defendant‘s complaints, the court reasonably concluded that defendant‘s general objections about a lack of communication with counsel were without merit or substance.
For the reasons stated in our decision in People v Lemos (34 AD3d 343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), we find unpreserved defendant‘s argument that the court unlawfully imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees when it did so only in writing, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.