Opinion
September 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.).
It is not difficult to understand why defendant now seeks an opportunity to undo his decision to forgo a generous plea offer which would have required him to inculpate his accomplices. Defendant fails, however, to establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance or in any way denied or hindered his right to take advantage of the People's plea offer. The trial court properly denied defendant's applications to substitute counsel inasmuch as there was no demonstration of good cause for such request.
Defendant's arguments concerning the jury charge are not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908; People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836), and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the charge, viewed as a whole, properly informed the jury of the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict ( People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832). Finally, we perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing ( People v Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266, affd 35 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 421 U.S. 951).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.