Opinion
August 9, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's argument that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal for the reasons currently asserted on appeal (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court's actions in questioning at a sidebar some of the prospective jurors concerning their ability to weigh evidence objectively and impartially during jury selection in the defendant's absence does not require reversal since the defendant's conviction predates People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247; see, People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). It is well settled that trial strategy should not be second-guessed on appeal (see, People v Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748). Moreover, the defendant has failed to establish that his attorney's performance was so unreasonable as to fall out of the scope of professional competence (see, People v Lovacco, 147 A.D.2d 592).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see, People v Alicea, 99 A.D.2d 815; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.