PEOPLE v. TOMLINSON

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claims of alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense witness and in summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Thompson, 62 AD3d 817, 818; see also People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). "The defendant either failed to raise an objection, made only general objections or, when an objection was sustained, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial" ( People v Thompson, 62 AD3d at 818). In any event, the comments and questions complained of do not warrant reversal ( see People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 483; People v Thompson, 62 AD3d at 818).

To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731; People v Monroe, 52 AD3d 623). To the extent that this claim is reviewable on direct appeal, defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731; People v Monroe, 52 AD3d 623). Defense counsel prepared and pursued trial strategies and defense theories, presented a clear and cogent opening and summation, and adequately cross-examined the People's witnesses. Hindsight does not elevate counsel's unsuccessful trial strategies to ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731; People v Monroe, 52 AD3d 623).