Ordered that the judgment and amended judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. It is well settled that "[w]hat constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixed with yardstick precision, but varies accordingly to the unique circumstances of each representation" ( People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). In resolving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the critical issue is whether, viewed in totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see, People v Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577). Here, the record demonstrates that the defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions in an effort to suppress inculpating evidence against the defendant, delivered a clear and cogent closing statement, conducted meaningful cross-examination of the People's witnesses, lodged objections consistent with the defense theory, highlighted inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony, moved for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case and again at the close of all of the evidence, obtained an acquittal on the count charging robbery in the first degree, and urged leniency during sentencing. Taken as a whole, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation ( see, People v Ortiz, 174 A.D.2d 763; People v Campbell, 162 A.D.2d 606).
The court properly exercised its discretion in directing that the sentences imposed as a result of the defendant's violations of probation run consecutive to the sentence for the underlying crime ( see, People v Santana, 191 A.D.2d 655). Furthermore, the sentences imposed were not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.