Opinion
June 25, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the criminal proceedings in their entirety, we are of the opinion that the defendant received meaningful and effective representation by counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Under the circumstances of this case, the defense counsel's failure to request an instruction on the mitigating defense of extreme emotional disturbance can reasonably be viewed as a strategic decision and "[i]t is not for 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 the defendant was afforded meaningful representation" (People v Speight, 158 A.D.2d 729).
The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was improper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, People v. Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613; People v. Decambre, 143 A.D.2d 927; People v Battles, 141 A.D.2d 748), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Mathis, supra; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502).
Finally, we perceive no basis on which to modify the sentence (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.