Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered October 18, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission into evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by the complainant. Thus, the trial court properly refused to allow the defendant to introduce the statement into evidence (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81 [1978]; People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d 775, 776 [2003]; People v Sutton, 209 AD2d 456, 457 [1994]).
The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus, constitutes a “mixed claim of ineffective assistance” (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; see People v Wesley, 85 AD3d 672, 673 [2011]). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Crump, 53 NY2d 824 [1981]; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852 [1978]). Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v Granger, 122 AD3d 940, 942 [2014]; People v Freeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.