People v. Spearing (223 A.D.2d 660, 1996)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered October 29, 1993, convicting him of bribe receiving in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant contends that his trial counsel did not provide him with meaningful representation because, inter alia, counsel chose to pursue the defense of factual innocence rather than entrapment. In light of the evidence, including the defendant’s own testimony at trial, the entrapment defense was not a strong defense. Counsel’s decision to forego the entrapment defense was a matter of strategy which was reasonable given the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; see also, People v Brathwaite, 139 AD2d 749).

The defendant’s request for a missing-witness charge was untimely. In any event, the defendant, failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the uncalled witness was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and that the witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the People (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 536; see also, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in the supplemental pro se brief, are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.