The decision of defendant's trial counsel, after having defended defendant during the trial on a theory of mis-identification, to request a justification charge and to argue in summation that defendant had been misidentified but that "whoever . . . stabbed [the victim] was justified," did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. While the defenses may have been inconsistent, the submission of inconsistent defenses to the jury is permissible where warranted by the evidence (People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529; People v. Garay, 128 A.D.2d 413). We cannot say that the tactic of offering the jury an alternative theory to acquit defendant, although risky and ultimately unavailing, did not reflect, under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable and legitimate strategy (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.