Opinion
March 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of a pre- Miranda statement he made to an officer while at the crime scene, in response to a question asked by the officer. The questioning by the officer did not constitute a custodial interrogation for which the administration of Miranda warnings was required (see, People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; People v. DeJesus, 192 A.D.2d 546). Further, the defendant's statements in the precinct house were voluntarily made after he was properly given Miranda warnings (see, People v. Williams, 191 A.D.2d 526; People v. Casiano, 123 A.D.2d 712).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's intent to cause the death of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v. Piermont, 180 A.D.2d 830; People v. Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Under the totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to meaningful representation by counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). His remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.