DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defense counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, effectively cross-examined witnesses, and delivered a cogent summation ( see People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d 249). Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Henry, supra; People v. Jackson, 52 N.Y.2d 1027).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting testimony that he threatened a witness is unpreserved for appellate review (
see People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879) and, in any event, is without merit (
see People v. De La Cruz,
227 A.D.2d 241;
People v. Leitzsey, 173 A.D.2d 488).
Contrary to the defendant's contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief, the County Court properly ordered restitution in the amount of the complainants' medical expenses without conducting a hearing. A court must conduct a hearing on the issue of restitution only "[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding [of the actual out-of-pocket loss] or upon request by the defendant" (Penal Law § 60.27). Here, the defendant did not request a hearing and there was sufficient support in the record for the court's determination of the amount of the complainants' out-of-pocket losses ( see People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407; People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.