erred in its ruling when it denied Smith’s request to have his trial counsel removed. ■ Smith complained that trial counsel had failed to notify him of his state statutory right pursuant to C.P.L. § 290.10 to testify before the grand jury. New York courts have consistently held that counsel’s failure to ensure that the defendant testifies before the grand jury does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 675 N.E.2d 845, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91 (N.Y.1996) (“Defense counsel’s failure to timely facilitate defendant’s intention to testify before the Grand Jury does not, per se, amount to a denial of effective assistance of counsel under the circumstance of this case[.]”); People v. Dennis, 295 A.D.2d 755, 744 N.Y.S.2d 534 (App.Div.3d Dept.2002) (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defense counsels failure to notify the people that defendant wished to testify before the grand jury does not by itself amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and finding that det fendants conclusory allegation that this failure may have impacted his ability to present a viable defense to be insufficient to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that the failure of defense counsel to object to erroneous punishment charge authorizing an illegal sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel