PEOPLE v. SOTO (1997)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered January 3, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 We disagree with the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing held to determine the circumstances surrounding his leaving a drug rehabilitation program.   A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of less than meaningful representation rather than simple disagreement with trial strategies and tactics (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698;  People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 510 N.Y.S.2d 81, 502 N.E.2d 996;  People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834).   We decline to second-guess defense counsel's decision not to call as a witness the defendant's case manager (see, People v. Bryant, 185 A.D.2d 327, 587 N.Y.S.2d 214).

 The court's deferral of sentencing upon the successful completion of the defendant's drug treatment program was not tantamount to illegal interim probation (see, People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 626 N.Y.S.2d 726, 650 N.E.2d 384).   Therefore, the court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence when he failed to successfully complete the program without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.