Opinion
June 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. It is well settled that "[w]hat constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixed with yardstick precision, but varies according to the unique circumstances of each representation" (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). In resolving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the critical issue is whether, viewed in totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577). Here, the record demonstrates that the defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, delivered a cogent opening and closing statement, and presented a plausible defense. Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v. Johnson, 184 A.D.2d 732; People v Ortiz, 174 A.D.2d 763).
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by the form of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object to its submission (see, People v. Abushatara, 176 A.D.2d 946). Moreover, reversal is not warranted in the exercise of our interests of justice jurisdiction, as the defendant consented to the submission of the verdict sheet (see, People v. Taylor, 76 N.Y.2d 873; People v Allah, 202 A.D.2d 599; People v. Abushatara, supra).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.