On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by a CPL 440.10 motion ( see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel at both trials ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Defendant has not demonstrated the "absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for the conduct of counsel at the first trial or that of the new counsel assigned for the retrial that followed a hung jury as to certain counts ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709), or that counsel's purported errors caused any prejudice ( People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024).
At both trials, the court properly admitted into evidence a tape of a 911 call under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, since the tape, in edited form, was a "spontaneous description * * * of events made contemporaneously with the observation" of those events ( People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734) and was "sufficiently corroborated" ( supra, at 734) by testimony that defendant was found in the parking lot and that a car's window was shattered.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.