Opinion
February 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By failing to object to the court's failure to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, the defendant waived his objection to the charge as given and, therefore, his claim of error is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 300.50; People v. Hunter, 141 A.D.2d 847; People v. Charles, 111 A.D.2d 405).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request that the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree be submitted to the jury. We note that a reviewing court must "avoid both confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v. Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577). We decline to second guess the trial strategy of requesting the submission of reckless endangerment in the second degree as a lesser offense rather than assault in the second degree.
We find that the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.