Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Although the defendant's counsel did not move to suppress certain physical evidence, that failure does not in itself establish ineffective assistance (see, People v. Belgrave, 143 A.D.2d 103; People v. White, 137 A.D.2d 859), especially where, as in this case, the record demonstrates that such a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence would have proved unavailing (see, People v. Perez, 133 A.D.2d 856; see also, People v. Bennett, 157 A.D.2d 630). Similarly, trial counsel's strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable and do not sustain the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance (see generally, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Counsel's efforts, including a motion to controvert the search warrant, the tenacious cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the presentation of a viable defense to the most serious charges, sufficed to constitute "meaningful representation" (People v. Baldi, supra, at 147) when the record is viewed as a whole.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.