Opinion
June 11, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record establishes that the warrantless arrest of the defendant was legal as he voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into his home after they identified themselves and specified the purpose of their visit. It also establishes that the defendant voluntarily accompanied them to the police station where he knowingly and voluntarily confessed, inter alia, to the crimes for which he was indicted and ultimately convicted (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 577; People v. Nonni, 141 A.D.2d 862).
Moreover, we reject the defendant's contention that it was improper to allow into evidence that portion of his confession which contained admissions of other crimes without redaction. Since his admissions regarding the other crimes were inseparably connected with his confession to the crimes with which he was subsequently charged, introduction into evidence of the entire confession was proper (see, People v. Loomis, 178 N.Y. 400; People v. Mitchell, 40 A.D.2d 117; Richardson, Evidence § 552, at 556 [Prince 10th ed]).
Nor was it error for the trial court to allow into evidence expert testimony on child sexual abuse syndrome to help explain why the victim did not fully report the attempted rape for approximately 18 months (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 422; People v. Benjamin R., 103 A.D.2d 663).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either waived or unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit (see, People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369-370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Hunt, 148 A.D.2d 836; People v. Grimsley, 60 A.D.2d 980; see also, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.