Opinion
March 26, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel based, inter alia, upon his trial counsel's reliance on the defenses of entrapment and agency. However, it is not the province of this court to "second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant's counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation" (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation and that defense counsel engaged in legitimate efforts to present an appropriate defense (see, People v Satterfield, supra; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Bush, 157 A.D.2d 736). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's claim rests upon matters outside of the record, it is not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v Bush, supra; People v Sampson, 156 A.D.2d 492).
The defendant's further contention that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the basis for his waiver of a jury trial is unpreserved for review (see, People v Johnson, 51 N.Y.2d 986; People v Magnano, 158 A.D.2d 979; People v Davidson, 123 A.D.2d 782). In any event, the defendant's written waiver of his right to a jury trial was signed and acknowledged in open court (see, CPL 320.10; People v Magnano, supra), and the Trial Judge conducted a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the defendant understood the consequences of his decision (see, People v Adkins, 145 A.D.2d 937; cf., People v Davidson, 136 A.D.2d 66).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.