Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel because the defense counsel insisted that the arresting officer be called to testify at the trial. This claim is meritless. The defense counsel's insistence on having the officer testify was based on the fact that the officer had previously made what appeared to be inconsistent statements concerning the facts of this case. The defense counsel, therefore, wanted to explore these apparent inconsistencies before the jury and, indeed, did so. Thus, the defense counsel's insistence on having the officer testify was clearly trial strategy. Merely because the defense counsel's tactics were not successful does not render his representation ineffective (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Marshall, 193 A.D.2d 818; People v. Hinton, 140 A.D.2d 712).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.