Opinion
February 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that trial counsel's representation of defendant, viewed in its entirety, provided him with effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867). Defendant's contention that the trial court's charge on the defense of justification was inadequate has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620). In any event, the court's charge on the defense of justification was adequate (see, People v. Bowick, 191 A.D.2d 1019, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1070; People v Estela, 177 A.D.2d 646, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 856). It was error for the trial court to permit the People, over objection, to introduce evidence of defendant's pre-arrest silence (see, People v. De George, 73 N.Y.2d 614; People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 457). That error, however, was harmless. The proof against defendant was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence affected the jury's verdict (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; see also, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.