Opinion
March 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's arguments on appeal turn on issues of credibility which are primarily to be determined by the hearing court (see, People v. Quartararo, 113 A.D.2d 845, 848; People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). The hearing court, in denying suppression of the defendant's inculpatory statements, resolved the credibility issues in favor of the People. Its finding that the defendant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436), is supported by the evidence, which includes the defendant's own videotaped statement. Furthermore, a review of the totality of circumstances (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38) demonstrates that the defendant's statements were given to the police voluntarily. Although it is undisputed that the defendant suffered an injury to his eye during the course of his arrest, the force used by the police in effectuating that arrest preceded his first inculpatory statement by about three hours and his videotaped statement by 5 1/2 hours. Thus, the use of such force was sufficiently attenuated from the defendant's later statements as to remove any taint which might have otherwise arisen therefrom (see, People v. Hill, 17 N.Y.2d 185).
We have also considered the issues raised in the defendant's pro se brief and have found them to be unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881; People v. Harvey, 111 A.D.2d 185). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.