Opinion
August 10, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No error was committed in admitting into evidence tape recordings of conversations among the undercover officer, the informant and the defendant, where the tapes were sufficiently audible and distinct so that the jury need not have speculated as to the contents thereof, and the officer testified that the conversations were accurately and fairly reproduced (see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, cert denied sub nom. Waters v. New York, 446 U.S. 942; People v. Beasley, 98 A.D.2d 946, affd 62 N.Y.2d 767; People v. Bazelais, 98 A.D.2d 802).
Nor was it error to summarily deny the defendant's motion to set aside the jury's verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The evidence offered in support of that motion was hearsay, and at best would have served only to impeach or contradict evidence adduced at trial (see, People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v. Williams, 35 A.D.2d 1023).
Finally, while the defense counsel may have engaged in certain trial strategies which in hindsight may not have been wise, the record in this case, viewed in its totality, reveals that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; see also, People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 156).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in charging the jury regarding the evaluation of character evidence has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and is, in any event, without merit (see, People v. Aharonowicz, 133 A.D.2d 117 [decided herewith]).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review. Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.