Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that trial testimony may not be considered in reviewing a hearing court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence (see, People v. Braithwaite, 172 A.D.2d 548, 549). Because the defendant relies solely on the trial testimony in support of his claim that the cocaine seized from his car should have been suppressed, this claim is not properly before this Court for review (see, People v. Braithwaite, supra, at 549; People v. Malone, 121 A.D.2d 657).
We find no merit to the defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. In reviewing such a claim, "[s]o long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798). Care must be taken to avoid confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and "according undue significance to retrospective analysis" (People v. Baldi, supra, at 146).
The record reflects that the defense attorney moved to suppress the cocaine, searched for witnesses to support the defendant, prepared a trial strategy and pursued that strategy during cross-examination of the People's witnesses, provided cogent reasons for not objecting to the admission of certain evidence that might otherwise have not been admitted, successfully moved to dismiss many of the charges against the defendant, and made a sound closing argument. That the strategy pursued did not result in an acquittal of all charges does not require the conclusion that counsel was ineffective (see, People v. Baldi, supra, at 146). The defendant has failed to demonstrate that any ineptitude by counsel affected the outcome of the trial and, therefore, reversal is not warranted (see, People v. Davidson, 197 A.D.2d 701; People v. Finch, 199 A.D.2d 278).
The defendant's remaining claims are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.