Opinion
December 26, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially we note that the hearing court's findings that Miranda warnings were properly administered to the defendant (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and that he voluntarily chose to waive his rights, are amply supported by the record. The defendant offered no evidence at the hearing to refute the proof of his intelligent waiver. Therefore, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's statement.
In addition, the court properly denied suppression of a folded dollar bill containing a tablet of LSD, which was found in a dresser drawer in the defendant's house. The search of the drawer and seizure of these items clearly fell within the scope of the search warrant (see, People v Padilla, 132 A.D.2d 578).
As to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, predicated upon his allegation dehors the record that counsel ignored his express desire to testify before the Grand Jury and at trial, the defendant's appropriate remedy is to bring a proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644; People v Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852). With respect to those allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel which are based on matters in the record, we find that the defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.