Crimes - Right to Counsel - Effective Representation - Counsel's Opinion of Pro Se Motion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig S. Brown, J.), rendered November 10, 2022, convicting the defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon the plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied meaningful representation on the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw the plea of guilty. "[C]ounsel takes a position adverse to his [or her] client when stating that the defendant's motion lacks merit, or that the defendant, who is challenging the voluntariness of his [or her] guilty plea, made a knowing plea . . . that was in his [or her] best interest" (People v Washington, 25 NY3d 1091, 1095 [2015] [citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Pointer, 218 AD3d 499, 500 [2023]). Here, defense counsel did not adversely express an opinion as to the merits of the defendant's motion, and therefore, the appointment of a new attorney to represent the defendant on that motion was not required (see People v Edwards, 223 AD3d 840, 841 [2024]; People v Pointer, 218 AD3d at 500). Barros, J.P., Voutsinas, Ventura and Golia, JJ., concur.