Opinion
September 18, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by means of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The record does not establish that defendant would have prevailed on the suppression theory he now claims should have been advanced by counsel, and the record likewise fails to negate strategic explanations for counsel's conduct of the hearing, inter alia, that success in suppression might well have undermined the severance won by counsel ( People v. Leteiza, 241 A.D.2d 306).
The court's detailed identification charge was more than adequate to address the identification issue as developed at trial, and the court was under no obligation to use the specific language requested by defendant (People v. Aponte, 166 A.D.2d 344, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 957).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.