PEOPLE v. MAXIS

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.