Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed as the result of a warrantless search of his apartment and the backyard of the apartment building. However, the specific arguments asserted by the defendant on appeal are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Valverde, 13 AD3d 658, 659; People v Toellner, 299 AD2d 567). Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing ( see People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567, 568; People v Facey, 22 AD3d 765, 766).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying a continuance of the sentencing proceeding, as the requested continuance was, by defense counsel's own admission, based on speculative thirdhand information ( cf. People v Fisher, 266 AD2d 308, 309).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.