Opinion
797
April 15, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J. at hearing; Budd Goodman, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 28, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 years, 3 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Meredith Boylan, for respondent.
Laura I. Appleman, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
Since no issues relating to defendant's statement at the scene were raised or ruled upon at the suppression hearing, defendant has not preserved his arguments that his statement to the police at the scene was improperly obtained without Miranda warnings and that this statement tainted his later statements at the precinct, made after Miranda warnings (see People v. Hines, 289 A.D.2d 40, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 755), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the statement at the scene was not custodial (see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589,cert denied 400 U.S. 851), and that, in any event, there was sufficient attenuation between the on-the-scene and station-house statements (compare People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 366).
The trial court's procedure of questioning certain prospective jurors individually and having both sides exercise their challenges before seating the next panelist for questioning, while unwarranted, did not violate CPL 270.15 (see People v. Alston, 88 N.Y.2d 519, 527, 529; People v. Miles 143 N.Y. 383).
We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent count (see People v. Spence, 290 A.D.2d 223,lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Kulakov, 278 A.D.2d 519, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 785).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.