Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J.), rendered September 7, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of prostitution.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was charged with prostitution (Penal Law § 230.00). At trial, defendant failed to object to the testimony by the arresting officer which she now claims on appeal constituted improper hearsay and bolstering, and thus, failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, said testimony of the
arresting officer was admissible for the purpose of establishing the reasons for the officer's actions and to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest (see People v Chatmon, 31 AD3d 781 [2006]; People v Smalls, 293 AD2d 500, 501 [2002]).

Defendant contends in her supplemental pro se brief on appeal that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Such contention is primarily based on matters dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Ault, 308 AD2d 594, 595 [2003]). To the extent that this contention can be reviewed, the record demonstrates that defendant's trial counsel effectively conducted direct examination of defendant and cross-examination of the People's witnesses, and delivered a closing statement which incorporated the testimony adduced at trial. Thus, upon this record, defendant received meaningful representation at trial (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Furthermore, we find that defendant has failed to establish that she was denied meaningful representation by appellate counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). [*2]

Defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, do not warrant reversal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 2, 2007