Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions concerning the questioning of himself and his wife on cross-examination by the prosecutor ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness with statements allegedly made by the witness to the prosecutor outside cour ( see, CPL 60.35). Although that contention was preserved for our review by a timely objection, no prejudice resulted because the witness did not admit making those statements and no independent proof of those statements was offered ( see, CPL 470.05). In this nonjury case, the court is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching the verdict ( see, People v. Limpert, 186 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Marcano, 157 A.D.2d 533; People v. Robinson, 143 A.D.2d 376, 377, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 789), and there is no basis in this record to conclude that the court did otherwise ( see, People v. Concepcion, 266 A.D.2d 227, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 917). Finally, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).