Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and David O. Leiwant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered November 23, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. “What 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, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Adams, 12 A.D.3d 523, 783 N.Y.S.2d 867). Here, defense counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, effectively cross-examined witnesses, and delivered cogent opening and closing statements ( see People v. Gaviria, 67 A.D.3d 701, 702, 886 N.Y.S.2d 900;*905People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d 249, 250, 717 N.Y.S.2d 269). Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Smith, 12 A.D.3d 707, 784 N.Y.S.2d 882;People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d at 250, 717 N.Y.S.2d 269).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
DILLON, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.