Opinion
April 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's primary contention on appeal is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel elicited hearsay testimony from a homicide detective which indicated that a second witness who did not testify at trial saw the defendant stab the victim. However, counsel's actions were consistent with a strategy to supplement the mistaken identification defense by suggesting that the police had seized upon an unreliable tip made by an individual who was himself a suspect in order to quickly close the case. Under these circumstances, defense counsel's decision to elicit testimony regarding this individual "was at most a mistaken judgment as to trial strategy and cannot be characterized as ineffective assistance of counsel" (People v. Jackson, 52 N.Y.2d 1027, 1029; see also, People v. Hinton, 140 A.D.2d 712). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that defense counsel provided meaningful representation to the defendant (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.