Opinion
January 30, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the appellant's counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Jackson, 52 N.Y.2d 1027; People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394; cf., People v. Bell, 48 N.Y.2d 933; People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457).
Moreover, while the Family Court denied the request of the appellant's counsel for an adjournment at the commencement of the fact-finding hearing so that counsel could prepare, the appellant was not prejudiced as a result thereof. This conclusion is supported by counsel's effective cross-examination of the arresting officer, counsel's meaningful closing argument, and counsel's written motion.
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Altman, JJ., concur.