Opinion
April 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency and admissibility of identification evidence is unpreserved ( People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10 19-21; People v. Morton, 189 A.D.2d 488, 495), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant's identity was properly established (CPL 60.25) and that, in any event, concerning sufficiency, identity was conceded by defendant in his own testimony ( see, People v. Kirkpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 17, 21, appeal dismissed 414 U.S. 948).
Upon the present record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion, we find that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). It was a plausible strategy to concede identity and claim that the altercation with the complainants did not involve attempted robbery.
The People presented ample evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's statements were voluntary ( see, People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973, 974).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.