Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without further inquiry, his request for new assigned counsel. "When a defendant's request on its face suggests a serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict with defense counsel, the trial court is obliged to make some minimal inquiry to determine whether the request has a genuine basis" (People v Stevens, 162 A.D.3d 1077, 1077 [2018]; see People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825 [1990]; People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207 [1978]). Here, however, the defendant, who was then represented by his third assigned attorney, failed to set forth "specific factual allegations of `serious complaints about counsel,'" so as to trigger the court's duty to make a minimal inquiry into his request for a fourth assigned attorney (People v Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100 [2010], quoting People v Medina, 44 NY2d at 207; see People v Leftenant, 173 A.D.3d 1211, 1212 [2019]; People v Degracia, 173 A.D.3d 1199 [2019]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that his subsequent decision to waive his right to counsel and to proceed pro se was unequivocal, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Ball, 162 A.D.3d 680, 681 [2018]; People v McCord, 133 A.D.3d 689, 690 [2015]). There is no indication in the record that the defendant was severely mentally ill at the time he made his request to proceed pro se, or that any mental condition at that time rendered him incapable of intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel
