Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wayne Saitta, J.), rendered August 25, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of theft of services and criminal impersonation in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the court below conducted a detailed and "searching inquiry" before permitting defendant to proceed pro se, during which it adequately informed him of the dangers inherent in self-representation. Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, the Court of Appeals has eschewed the application of
a rigid formula and endorsed the use of a nonformalistic, flexible inquiry (see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 104 [2002]). A "waiver of the right to counsel will not be deemed ineffective simply because a trial judge does not ask questions designed to elicit each of the specific items of information recited in Arroyo" (People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 583 [2004]). The record herein, as a whole, clearly indicates that defendant understood what he was doing when he waived his right to counsel and provides a reliable basis upon which to conclude that he effectively waived his right to counsel (id. at 584).

Golia, J.P., and Rios, J., concur.

Belen, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: March 22, 2006