Opinion
November 12, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that trial counsel provided him with meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Although counsel did not cross-examine all of the prosecution witnesses and deliver an opening statement, he moved to suppress certain statements made by the defendant, cross-examined witnesses to undermine their credibility and highlight alternate interpretations of the evidence, conducted voir dire examinations when evidence was sought to be introduced, moved to dismiss the charges against the defendant at the close of the prosecution's case, and delivered a summation in which he carefully explained the evidence in such a manner as to try to persuade the jury that the defendant did not commit the crimes with which he was charged. That, in retrospect, the utilization of different defense tactics might have been more successful, does not change the result (see, People v. Williams, 162 A.D.2d 569; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 227).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.