Majority
The defendant’s contention that, the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence testimony from the People’s expert witness regarding the probability of a coincidental match of a partial DNA profile obtained from the victim’s fingernails with a DNA profile in the local population is unpreserved for appellate review {see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Peele, 73 AD3d 1219 ,
The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and the state constitutions is without merit. The defendant failed to “ ‘demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 , 152 [2005], quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705 , 709 [1988]). Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that counsel provided effective representation (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 , 694 [1984]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 146-147 [1981]; People v Monsuri, 83 AD3d 870 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]).
The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Peele 73 AD3d 1219 p. 1162
- People v. Wesley 83 NY2d 417 at 427 p. 1163
- People v. Parker 304 AD2d 146 at 159 p. 1163
- People v. Vega 225 AD2d 890 at 893 p. 1163
- People v. Caban 5 NY3d 143 at 152 p. 1163
- People v. Rivera 71 NY2d 705 at 709 p. 1163
- Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 at 694 p. 1163
- People v. Baldi 54 NY2d 137 at 146-147 p. 1163
- People v. Monsuri 83 AD3d 870 p. 1163