Opinion
October 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's failure to inform the defense counsel of the People's intent to refer to the defendant's admission to his wife and his prior vicious act in kicking her across the bedroom did not deprive him of a fair trial. A defendant is not entitled to notice with respect to statements made to a prosecution witness where that witness was a civilian and was neither a public servant nor acting as an agent of law enforcement authorities (CPL 710.30; People v. Grune, 139 A.D.2d 763; People v. Hall, 133 A.D.2d 845; People v. Rodriguez, 114 A.D.2d 525). With respect to the prior vicious act, the defendant failed to preserve the claim for appellate review (CPL 470.05).
The mere fact that the defense counsel did not engage in available pretrial procedures does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective (People v. Gonzalez, 161 A.D.2d 798; People v. Elliott, 124 A.D.2d 673). 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. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 229). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.