Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's assertion that the evidence of forcible compulsion was insufficient as a matter of law. The complainant's testimony on this point was legally sufficient to support the finding that the defendant's sexual relations with her were accomplished by means of forcible compulsion (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Barnes, 151 A.D.2d 586; People v. Pepples, 135 A.D.2d 581). Similarly, the defendant's own testimony to the effect that he attempted to penetrate the complainant and thereby caused her to bleed was legally sufficient to establish the element of "penetration" pursuant to Penal Law § 130.00 (1). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel is unsupported by the record, which demonstrates that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Pelaccio, 159 A.D.2d 734). To the extent that the defendant's claim rests upon matters outside of the record, it is not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v. Pelaccio, supra; People v. Reyes, 158 A.D.2d 626). In this regard, we note that the defendant failed to timely and properly seek leave to appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, CPL 450.15; 460.10 [4] [a]; 460.30). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.