Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant's pretrial pro se suppression motion inasmuch as that motion was served and filed more than 45 days after defendant's arraignment (see, CPL 255.20, [3]; 710.40 [1]; 710.70 [1]; People v Kasparek, 174 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1078). Contrary to defendant's contention, he was not subjected to an illegal arrest (see, People v Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583, 588-589, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 1210; People v Lopez, 95 A.D.2d 241; see also, Executive Law § 259-i [a] [i]). Additionally, we reject defendant's contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The record demonstrates that defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147).