Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered June 12, 2001 after a nonjury trial (Ellen M. Coin, J.) convicting him of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00/240.30[1]), harassment in the first degree (Penal Law § 240.25) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[3]), and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction rendered June 12, 2001 (Ellen M. Coin, J.) affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00/240.30[1]) and related offenses upon evidence, inter alia, that he made a series of offensive and threatening telephone calls to the complainant, a neighboring tenant. The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which included the defendant's trial admission that he had made the telephone calls complained of and that the language and "awful name[s]" he used during the calls and voice mail messages were "regrettable". Nor is there merit to defendant's constitutional points, since the telephone harassment statute is neither constitutionally overbroad nor void for vagueness (see People v Shack, 86 NY2d 529 [1995]; People v Caldwell, 172 Misc [*2]2d 382, 384 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1033 [1997]; People v Katz, 135 Misc 2d 857 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 713 [1987], appeal dismissed 484 US 960 [1987]).

Defendant's evidentiary arguments are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, were we to review these claims, we would find no error warranting reversal. Even assuming in defendant's favor, that bad act evidence exceeding the court's original Ventimiglia ruling was improperly received, any error in this regard was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt received in this nonjury trial (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; see also People v Molloy, 282 AD2d 311 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]).

Defendant's ineffective assistance claim rests largely upon factual assertions contained in his unsuccessful motion to vacate judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10. Since leave to appeal to this Court was denied, however, these assertions are not properly before this Court (People v Williams, 266 AD2d 97 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 879 [2000]). The existing record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.