Opinion
April 18, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in determining that he executed a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights prior to making any statements. We disagree. The court's findings that the defendant was given Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and voluntarily chose to waive them are amply supported by the record. Furthermore, the fact that approximately 9 1/2 hours elapsed between the point at which the defendant was advised of and waived his rights and his admission does not render the interrogation inherently coercive. "It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous" (People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, cert denied 472 U.S. 1021; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 29, lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 974).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.