Opinion
August 9, 1999.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that the verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objection was made prior to the discharge of the jury ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985). In any event, the verdict was not repugnant ( see, People v. Trappier, 87 N.Y.2d 55, 58; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Here, the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that he was provided with meaningful representation ( see, People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404; People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854, 856; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). The defendant bears the high burden of demonstrating that he was deprived of a fair trial as the result of counsel's performance ( see, People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1022). Simple disagreement with strategies and trial tactics will not suffice ( see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Joy and H. Miller, JJ., concur.