Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his first, second, and third statements to law enforcement authorities. After the defendant invoked his right to counsel prior to giving his first statement, he was allowed to speak privately over the telephone with an attorney. When the defendant finished his conversation, the attorney spoke with the police. The attorney indicated that the defendant would answer questions without counsel present. Under these circumstances, the defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was effective (see, People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 254; People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 53-54; People v. Drelich, 123 A.D.2d 441, 444).
The hearing court should have suppressed the fourth statement because it was given without an attorney present after the felony complaint was filed and the arrest warrant was issued (see, People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 221; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 166). However, because the substantive content of this statement was duplicative of the other statements made by the defendant, this error was harmless (see, People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 659, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; People v. Drelich, supra).
Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.