Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712). "The record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, presented an alibi defense, and made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense" ( People v Pollard, 220 AD2d 463, 464; see People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823-824; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652; People v Ortiz, 174 AD2d 763, 763). Moreover, the "defendant has failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings" ( People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Williams, 59 AD3d 576; People v Ramjit, 59 AD3d 466; People v Demolaire, 55 AD3d 621, 622; People v Coleman, 37 AD3d 489, 490). Accordingly, "[the] defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel" ( People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 824; see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).