Opinion
July 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. Counsel's performance was not deficient, nor did he make "errors so serious that [he] was not functioning as the "counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" ( Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687). Counsel obtained a favorable ruling for defendant pursuant to People v. Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371), vigorously cross-examined the prosecutor's key witness, made the proper motions during and after the trial, and argued defendant's position to the jury during his summation. The disagreement between defendant and his counsel concerning the propriety of presenting the testimony of certain defense witnesses was admirably resolved by the trial court, and all but one of the witnesses were eventually permitted to testify. The only exception was the witness whose testimony the court properly labeled as irrelevant. This disagreement, which, in effect, was predominantly an issue of trial strategy, did not prevent defendant from obtaining a fair trial, nor did it deprive him of meaningful representation on the part of trial counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Defendant's other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and O'Connor, JJ., concur.