Opinion
February 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims that a missing witness charge was required and that the trial court erred in singling him and his codefendant out as interested witnesses were considered by this court and rejected on the codefendant's appeal (People v Caldwell, 134 A.D.2d 440), and we find no basis to reach a different conclusion on the defendant's appeal. Furthermore, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel and was not prejudiced by counsel's carefully-considered strategy of impeaching a police witness with previous testimony or by the failure to move for a separate trial (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.