PEOPLE v. FRY

Defendant's principal contention on appeal is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately explore and present his claimed defense that he was not driving the vehicle when it was stopped. However, defendant's criticism that this defense was not explored more vigorously by calling more witnesses is "nothing more than an attack on the trial strategy employed and does not substantiate a denial of meaningful representation" (People v Szarka, 163 A.D.2d 758). Defendant's remaining arguments are also without merit (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v. Miller, 163 A.D.2d 627, 629).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J.P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.