Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the court's charge as a whole correctly explained to the jury the statutory presumption of possession by the occupants of an automobile in which contraband is found (see, 3 CJI[NY] PL 220.25 [1], at 1805). We also reject the defendant's argument that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. The fact that the defendant's attorney used milder language than that used by his codefendants' counsel in attacking the police officers' testimony during summation, did not, by itself, deprive the defendant of "meaningful representation" (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, on remand 87 A.D.2d 843, appeal after remand 96 A.D.2d 212). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining arguments, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Luccioni, 120 A.D.2d 617, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 771; People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, 215-216, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v Gonzalez, 127 A.D.2d 787, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1004). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.