People v. TignerPeople v. Tigner
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant‘s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to raise this specific contention at trial (see
The defendant‘s disagreement with the strategy employed by defense counsel does not amount to a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Lassiter, 44 AD3d 877 [2007]; People v Palacios, 295 AD2d 452 [2002]). Lifson, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.