Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The significant issue in this circumstantial evidence case is whether the jury indulged in any unwarranted inferences in applying the reasonable hypothesis standard and whether the jury reached a reasonable determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 767-768; People v Betancourt, 111 A.D.2d 762, 763, affd 68 N.Y.2d 707). Here the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People shows that the defendant was guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (1), (5) (a), and (b), that the jury did not indulge in any unwarranted inferences, and that it reached a reasonable determination.
The defendant is also incorrect in asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a pretrial Sandoval hearing. The mere fact that the defendant's counsel did not engage in a pretrial procedure available to the defendant does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective (see, People v Jackson, 110 A.D.2d 853; People v Taylor, 105 A.D.2d 814), and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant's representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
The claimed errors with respect to the trial court's charge on reasonable doubt and its failure to charge on reasonable doubt as requested by the defendant were not properly preserved for appellate review (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 280; People v Dawson, 115 A.D.2d 612; People v Irazarry, 114 A.D.2d 1041, 1042), and do not, under the circumstances of this case, warrant reversal in the interest of justice.
Similarly, the defendant's contentions that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (1) is not properly a strict liability offense, or that if it is, the felony penalty for the statute's violation is contrary to constitutional due process requirements, also have not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Elliott, 65 N.Y.2d 446, 447; People v Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973, 975; People v Singleton, 107 A.D.2d 828; People v Cates, 104 A.D.2d 895, 897).
The recent case of People v Burger ( 67 N.Y.2d 338, cert granted ___ US ___, 93 L Ed 2d 20) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.