Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that "[w]hat constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixed with yardstick precision, but varies according to the unique circumstances of each representation" (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). In resolving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the critical issue is whether, viewed in totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (People v Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941; People v Badia, 159 A.D.2d 577, 578; People v Tippins, 173 A.D.2d 512).
The record demonstrates that defense counsel vigorously and effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, delivered opening and closing arguments which were consistent with his misidentification defense, raised appropriate objections, and presented a plausible defense. Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (People v Benn, supra; People v Tippins, supra; People v Badia, supra).
We also find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.