Opinion
December 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. At trial, the People introduced into evidence, in relevant part, the defendant's statement to the police in which he admitted that he shot the victim in self-defense, as well as eyewitness testimony concerning the shooting. Consequently, defense counsel's trial strategy was to concede that the defendant shot the victim, but to assert the defense of justification. This court will not, with the benefit of hindsight, second-guess an attorney's losing trial strategy, even where, as here, it included an admission to the actual shooting and the unlawful possession of the gun used to shoot the victim (see, People v. Glover, 165 A.D.2d 880; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 227; see also, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798; People v. Torres, 164 A.D.2d 923). Under the circumstances of this case, the defense counsel's representation of the defendant, when viewed in its entirety, was meaningful (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Stephens, 161 A.D.2d 740). Lawrence, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.