Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, neither the gun seized from the automobile in which he was a passenger nor the statements he made to the police were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure ( see, People v. O'Neal, 248 A.D.2d 561 [decided herewith]). Further, although he initially invoked his right to remain silent upon receiving his Miranda warnings, a request which was "scrupulously honored", the defendant then changed his mind and voluntarily made certain statements ( see, People v. Kinnard, 62 N.Y.2d 910, 912). His voluntary statements, made hours after he invoked his right to remain silent and after the Miranda warnings had been reissued, were admissible ( see, People v. Nisbett, 225 A.D.2d 801). Consequently, the hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress the gun and his statements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's prior testimony from the trial of the codefendant Norman Allen was properly admitted ( see, People v. Gardner, 237 A.D.2d 895; People v. Rose, 224 A.D.2d 643).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.