Opinion
March 9, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit in the defendant's contention that he was the victim of misidentification and that the trial court erred in summarily denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony of a police officer. The officer had been working in the neighborhood of Elm Street and Oak Street in Yonkers for approximately four months prior to the drug transactions which led to the defendant's arrest. During that period the officer had seen the defendant on the same corner on numerous occasions. Thus, the defendant was familiar to the officer, even though the officer did not know his name (see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915). Consequently, the officer's identification of the defendant from a single photograph at the detective division minutes after he purchased the vials of crack cocaine from the defendant was merely confirmatory in nature (see, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v Kearn, 118 A.D.2d 871).
We also find that the defendant received meaningful representation at trial (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137), and his apparent disagreement with his attorney over an aspect of trial strategy does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Burton, 106 A.D.2d 652).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.