Opinion
October 19, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is based on his attorney's withdrawal of a Mapp suppression motion. However, the facts presented revealed that the defendant had discarded his weapon and no search had occurred. Counsel's withdrawal of that motion upon such disclosure was consistent with accepted standards of meaningful criminal defense representation considering the evidence, the law and the particular circumstances (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v. Wagner, 104 A.D.2d 457).
Counsel appropriately concluded that the police acted properly in arresting the defendant, based upon the radio call for police assistance, the defendant's presence at the scene, his flight as the arresting officers arrived, the pursuit of the defendant, and the discarding of the weapon during the chase (see, People v Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210).
Furthermore, defense counsel's performance of his duties regarding pretrial suppression procedures, extensive cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and his objections to improper offers of evidence met the standard of meaningful representation (see, People v. Brown, 124 A.D.2d 667, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 825; People v. Hill, 122 A.D.2d 810, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 914).
Finally, it was not improper for the trial court to sentence the defendant to consecutive terms considering his prior criminal history (CPL 470.15; People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Smith, 99 A.D.2d 472). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.