| People v Velez |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05802 [64 AD3d 621] |
| July 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoseVelez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee,and Alice L. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg,J.), rendered May 31, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, possession ofburglar's tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the defendant's employerreferred to inadmissible hearsay, which violated his constitutional right to confront witnessesagainst him (US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6). The defendant's contention isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Liner, 9 NY3d 856[2007]). Further, it is apparent from the record that defense counsel's failure to object to thedefendant's employer's references to his dispatcher and the time sheets for the day of the crimewas part of a trial strategy to discredit the employer's testimony (see People v Sprosta, 49 AD3d784 [2008]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.The record reveals legitimate explanations for the alleged instances of ineffective assistance ofcounsel (id.). Further, viewing the totality of the evidence, the law, and thecircumstances of the case, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation(see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Gonzalez, 22 AD3d 597, 598 [2005]; People v Torres, 13 AD3d 562[2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Dillon, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.