Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the police did not improperly solicit him to commit any crimes and thereby deprive him of due process (see, People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511). We similarly reject the defendant's argument that the People failed to establish an adequate foundation for the admission into evidence of the cocaine purchased (see, People v Mayas, 137 A.D.2d 836).
The court did not err in permitting the People to admit into evidence on rebuttal the scale, envelopes and hypodermic syringes (see, People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 U.S. 1047; People v. Roccaforte, 141 A.D.2d 775, 776).
The defendant is also incorrect in asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to ensure that a pretrial Sandoval hearing was conducted. The mere fact that the defendant's counsel did not engage in a pretrial procedure available to the defendant does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective (see, People v. Chang, 129 A.D.2d 722, 723), and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant's representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 229).
We also disagree with the defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself (see, People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17).
Finally, we find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive. Mangano, P.J., Brown, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.