ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel elicited testimony to the effect that the defendant was known to be involved in criminal activity, and failed to request an alibi charge to the jury. However, the record reveals that counsel elicited the testimony of police suspicions of the defendant in order to further a theory that the complainant named the defendant as her assailant only after he was suggested to her by the police. The decision not to request an alibi charge was reasonable in view of the weakness of the defendant's alleged alibi, which consisted solely of his own testimony that he was alone at home at the time of the crime.
Counsel's trial strategy, though unsuccessful, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 186; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). Counsel's efforts, including timely objections, detailed cross-examination of the People's witnesses, and the presentation of a viable defense in a case where the evidence against the defendant was substantial, constituted "meaningful representation" (People v. Cummings, 269 A.D.2d 541, 542; see, People v. Baldi, supra; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 227).