Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is elementary that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of less than meaningful representation, rather than simple disagreement with trial strategies and tactics (People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 942). In the case at bar, the defense counsel's decision to refrain from making a pretrial motion to suppress inculpatory statements made by the defendant to the police was explained on the record as being part of counsel's trial strategy. Since the defendant has wholly failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure to pursue an arguably colorable claim (People v. Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973, 974), it is presumed counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment in not requesting a suppression hearing (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709). In addition, the defendant failed to make a showing that defense counsel failed to sufficiently review an expert's prospective testimony prior to calling him as a witness (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 1000). Taken as a whole, the defense counsel's efforts afforded the defendant "meaningful representation" (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
We find the defendant's remaining contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.