Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Sondra K. Pardes, J.), rendered February 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

The issue of whether defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is, in large part, not reviewable on defendant's direct appeal from the judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) because it involves matters outside the record concerning his counsel's reasons for not requesting particular hearings, which reasons might have been developed had an appropriate post-judgment CPL 440.10 motion been made (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998, 1000 [1982]; see also People v Morris, 14 Misc 3d 144[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50387[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; People v Garcia, 4 Misc 3d 133[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50746[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). To the extent that this contention can be reviewed, the record indicates that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Lopez, 2 AD3d 234 [2003]). Defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: February 27, 2009