STATE v. ODUBOGUN

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions regarding the prosecutor's reference during his opening statement to a witness who ultimately refused to testify, and regarding the admission of testimony of a detective that, after conducting interviews at the crime scene, he suspected the defendant of committing the murder and that he arrested the defendant after a witness viewed a lineup, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Barboza, 24 AD3d 460, 461; People v Boatswain, 8 AD3d 673, 674; People v Thompson, 276 AD2d 811).

In any event, the defendant's claims with respect to the opening statement and the testimony about when the defendant became a suspect are without merit ( see People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207, cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025; People v Nicholas, 1 AD3d 614), and any error in the admission of the testimony about the arrest after the lineup was harmless ( see People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Counsel pursued a viable misidentification defense throughout the trial. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).