Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was provided with meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). The defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, vigorously cross-examined the People's witnesses, raised appropriate objections, and presented cogent opening and closing arguments (see, People v. Hewlett, 71 N.Y.2d 841, 842; People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 798). The defendant's chief complaint appears to be his failure to agree with his lawyer's trial strategy, a reason which does not constitute a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199; People v. Davis, 161 A.D.2d 787, 789). Moreover, there is no indication in the record that the defense counsel failed to act in a competent and professional manner (see, People v. Davis, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.