—[*1]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered February 19, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years and a five-year period of postrelease supervision. We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. It cannot be said that the prosecutor's conduct " 'caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he [was] denied due process of law' " (People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77 [1984], lv denied 63 NY2d 711 [1984]). We further conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 711-712 [1998]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799 [1985]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defense counsel made relevant motions, cross-examined witnesses and ably presented a justification defense, which ultimately was rejected by the jury. We note, however, that "[i]n reviewing claims of ineffective assistance care must be taken to 'avoid both confusing true ineffectiveness [of counsel] with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis' " (Satterfield, 66 NY2d at 798). Also contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly charged the jury that it should evaluate defendant's actions in the light of what a "reasonable person in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed" (see People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114 [1986]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without [*2]merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.