Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to request a probable cause hearing is without merit. It is well settled that "a showing that counsel failed to make a particular pretrial motion does not, by itself, establish ineffective assistance of counsel" (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709; see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Harris, 163 A.D.2d 898, 899, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 893; People v. Williams, 140 A.D.2d 969, 970; People v Lawton, 134 A.D.2d 454, 455, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1029). Here, the performance of defendant's attorney, "viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal[s] that [defendant's] attorney provided meaningful representation [and, therefore], the constitutional requirement [has] been met" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see, People v. Rivera, supra; People v Satterfield, supra; People v. Harris, supra; People v. Williams, supra). Further, in our view, the circumstances existing at the time furnished probable cause for the police to arrest defendant (see, People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v Quarles, 187 A.D.2d 200, 203, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1018; People v Lawton, supra, at 455).