Defense counsel Robert A. Gross was virtually assigned as defendant's counsel on both dockets on July 15, 2020. He now moves to be relieved as counsel.

In support of the application, Attorney Gross affirms that on July 16th through July 27th 2020, he and the defendant had a breakdown in communication and that communication with the defendant has become impossible. Specifically, counsel affirms that defendant has stated that he was "recording all of our calls", threatened to "go over my head' and said a "commission" would be contacting counsel. Attorney Gross also states that the defendant has contacted him on his cell phone and text message more that 20 times within the first two days of representation, has stated to him that he is failing to assist him in any matter in retrieving his personal vouchered property, despite that not being the case. He affirms that the defendant has orally stated to him that he does not want counsel to represent him.

The law is very clear that "[t]he right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them." (United States v Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 US 140, 151 [2006]; see Morris v Slappy, 461 US 1, 13-14, 103 S Ct 1610, 75 L Ed 2d 610 [1983]; United States v Parker, 469 F3d 57, 61 [2d Cir 2006].) "Whether counsel is substituted is within the discretion and responsibility of the trial judge" (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99 [2010]). Trial courts are afforded considerable latitude in their decisions to replace appointed counsel, and may do so upon a showing of good cause, including where a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict between counsel and his client exist (People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822 [1990]. In determining whether to substitute counsel, a court must take into consideration the timing of the request, the effect on the progress of the case and whether present counsel is likely to provide the defendant with meaningful assistance (People v Porto, 16 NY3d a 100) (citations omitted). A relationship of mutual confidence between lawyer and client is important to the lawyer's fulfillment of his professional functions. The inability to communicate with a defendant to explore possible legal challenges due to a "disintegration of the attorney-client relationship" and a complete breakdown in communication between attorney and client, warrant the assignment of new counsel. (People v Gibson, 126 AD3d 1300 [4th Dept. 2015]; People v White, 288 AD2d 839 [4th Dept. 2001]).

The Court finds that Attorney Gross has demonstrated that irreconcilable differences exist between counsel and the defendant and there has been a complete breakdown in communication between them. Attorney Gross was assigned to this matter on July 15, 2020, and just two weeks later filed the instant application. Accordingly, the Court finds that his application was timely and establishes sufficient good cause warranting the assignment of new counsel to the defendant.

Motion granted.

Defendant shall appear on December 1, 2020 at 10:30am for all purposes and the assignment of new counsel.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.