Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In this case a police officer observed, through an apartment door opened in response to the officer's knock, the defendant in possession of a clear plastic bag containing vials of cocaine and running towards the rear of the apartment. The defendant claims that the subsequent police entry into the apartment was unlawful and effected in violation of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see, US Const 4th Amend; N Y Const, art I, § 12). However, the defendant's claim has not been preserved for appellate review because he failed to request a suppression hearing in the court of the first instance (see, CPL 470.05; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v Carolina, 112 A.D.2d 244). In any event, based upon the record established at trial, we find that the police action was justified by operation of the plain view doctrine since the officer had lawfully obtained the vantage point from which he observed the defendant, in plain view, possessing and attempting to hide or destroy the contraband (see, Horton v California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137). In addition, we reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant has wholly failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's decision not to request a suppression hearing (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705). Accordingly, it is presumed that counsel acted competently and exercised professional judgment in declining to pursue a hearing (see, People v Rivera, supra; People v Torres, 183 A.D.2d 862). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.