Opinion
July 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during trial. The record indicates that trial counsel presented a well-structured and credible defense, skillfully cross-examined prosecution witnesses, and ably argued his client's case during summation. His failure to except to certain portions of the trial court's charge does not indicate ineffectiveness or incompetence, for those portions of the charge were proper statements of the law. Similarly, his failure to move to suppress a pistol which was admitted into evidence at the defendant's trial was not error, as the pistol was seized from the person of another individual and the defendant had no standing to assert that person's 4th Amendment rights (see generally, Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, reh denied 439 U.S. 1122; People v Morales, 116 A.D.2d 671; People v Cacioppo, 104 A.D.2d 559). The mere fact that defense counsel's tactics and strategy ultimately proved unsuccessful cannot be equated with ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Under the totality of the circumstances presented in this record, we cannot say that the defendant was denied meaningful representation at trial (see, People v Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748; People v Baldi, supra; People v Dudley, 110 A.D.2d 652).
Additionally, we note that the sentence of 4 to 12 years imposed by the court on the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was not illegal. The defendant's remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, are patently without merit. Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.