Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The defendant's trial counsel presented competent opening and closing statements, effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, elicited testimony that weakened the People's case, and forcefully pursued his theory that another person was the perpetrator. Most of the alleged errors committed by trial counsel constituted plausible trial tactics or had other legitimate explanations. The mere fact that the strategy pursued by counsel was not successful does not render trial counsel's assistance ineffective (see, People v Davis, 220 A.D.2d 445; People v. Ross, 209 A.D.2d 730). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances together as of the time of representation, we find that the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel was satisfied (see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Pollard, 220 A.D.2d 463; People v. DeFina, 213 A.D.2d 665; People v. Ransome, 207 A.D.2d 504; People v. Finch, 199 A.D.2d 278).
The defendant's further contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or, in any event, without merit (see, People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36; People v Pilgrim, 208 A.D.2d 868; People v. Drummond, 188 A.D.2d 312; see also, People v. Cousart, 58 N.Y.2d 62; People v. Foley, 203 A.D.2d 952). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, JJ., concur.