Opinion
August 4, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain statements made by him to the police and physical evidence should have been suppressed, finding fault with the hearing court's decision to credit the testimony of the People's witnesses over that of defendant's. It is axiomatic, however, that "much weight" must be accorded the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and the court's determination should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record (People v Boyce, 89 A.D.2d 623, 624; People v Duncan, 75 A.D.2d 823, 824). At bar, the suppression court specifically found that the defendant, after having been given his rights, knowingly and intelligently waived them. There is nothing in the record which suggests that the court's conclusion was erroneous.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.