Opinion
April 3, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of murder in the second degree. Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's failure to present his defense properly, to cross-examine crucial prosecution witnesses adequately, and to object to the admission of damaging evidence. Under all of the circumstances, these alleged errors do not constitute a failure to provide effective representation depriving the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Dietz, 79 A.D.2d 476, 477). Although defense counsel might have used different tactics and strategies in presenting the defense, defendant was not denied "meaningful representation" (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146; People v Goodrich, 127 A.D.2d 992).
Defendant also contends that a new trial is required because the court failed to preclude the prosecution from using oral statements made to the District Attorney that were not previously disclosed to defense counsel. This contention is without merit since disclosure of the statements was neither required by statute nor specifically provided for in the parties' agreement for reciprocal discovery.