Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that defense counsel rendered effective assistance (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Moreover, the defendant must show that, but for counsel's allegedly deficient performance, the outcome of the criminal action would have been different (see, People v Cuesta, 177 A.D.2d 639).
Although trial counsel failed to object to the bolstering testimony of two police officers, we find that, standing alone, this omission did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Throughout the trial, the defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, raised appropriate objections, and made cogent arguments in his summation by bringing out the weakness in the People's case and emphasizing his contention that the defendant was the victim of misidentification. Viewing counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance (see, People v Johnson, 184 A.D.2d 732; cf., People v Winston, 134 A.D.2d 546).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.