DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At a pretrial hearing, the arresting officer testified that an eyewitness to the automobile accident preceding the assault positively identified the car involved in the accident, the assailants, and their clothing. Any discrepancies between that testimony and the trial testimony of the eyewitness regarding the identification did not deprive the defendant of any substantial right (see, People v. March, 271 A.D.2d 700; People v. Mack, 224 A.D.2d 447, 448; cf., People v. Figliolo, 207 A.D.2d 679, 681; People v. Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 553), nor did they demonstrate that defense counsel's failure to move to reopen the suppression hearing rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, CPL 710.40; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Trent, 193 A.D.2d 637, 638). The totality of the circumstances at the time of the representation demonstrates that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v. Rivera, supra; People v. Baldi, supra; People v. Trent, supra; People v. Creech, 183 A.D.2d 777; People v. Shuler, 149 A.D.2d 634).
O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, GOLDSTEIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.