Opinion
October 9, 1997
Appeal from County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence at the hearing does not support a finding that the delay in his arraignment was for the purpose of depriving him of his right to counsel ( see, People v. Ortleb, 84 N.Y.2d 989; People v. Lopez, 185 A.D.2d 285; see also, People v. Ellis, 222 A.D.2d 519). Similarly unpersuasive is his argument that the statements he made to the police were coerced. Rather, a review of the hearing record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the statements were made after his intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35) and were not the product of coercion. Thus, the hearing court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements ( see, People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, a review of both the evidence adduced at the hearing and the lineup photographs establishes that the lineup was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Ellis, supra; People v. Muniz, 174 A.D.2d 635; People v. Cicero, 119 A.D.2d 687; cf., People v. Garcia, 153 A.D.2d 951). Accordingly, identification evidence was properly admitted at trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or constitute harmless error ( see, People v. Di Nicolantonio, 74 N.Y.2d 856; People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, 758; People v. Gardner, 237 A.D.2d 895).
Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.