Opinion
June 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that "[w]hat constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixed with yardstick precision, but varies according to the unique circumstances of each representation" (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). In resolving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the critical issue is whether, viewed in totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (People v Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577, 578; People v Tippins, 173 A.D.2d 512).
The record demonstrates that defense counsel vigorously and effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, delivered opening and closing arguments which were consistent with his misidentification defense, raised appropriate objections, and presented a plausible defense. Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (People v Benn, supra; People v Tippins, supra; People v Badia, supra).
We also find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.