Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, consisting of a written statement from the informant who recanted the information used to obtain a search warrant. However, as newly-discovered evidence must do more than merely impeach or contradict evidence introduced at the trial and recantation evidence is inherently unreliable, the trial court did not err in denying the motion without a hearing ( see, People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v. Cheng, 232 A.D.2d 651; People v. Pineda, 207 A.D.2d 915; People v. Legette, 153 A.D.2d 760).
Viewing the representation provided by defense counsel "`in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case'" ( People v. Williams, 247 A.D.2d 416; see also, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Glover, 165 A.D.2d 880), the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Johnson, 245 A.D.2d 570; People v. Wheeler, 242 A.D.2d 310).
Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.