Opinion
1998-05219
Submitted January 23, 2003.
March 17, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered May 29, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Lipp, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ethel P. Ross, Rye, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Karol B. Mangum of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The factual findings and credibility determination of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). Here, the hearing record supports the denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his custodial statements to law enforcement officials (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). The detective's uncontroverted testimony established that the defendant was provided with food and water, his other physical needs were met, he was properly advised of his rights utilizing a Miranda form, and he was not denied access to counsel (see People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51; People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285). Additionally, since there was no evidence that the police were aware that the defendant was represented by counsel on a separate and unrelated matter, they were under no duty to contact counsel (see People v. Jackson, 292 A.D.2d 466, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 730).
Errors made during the trial, if any, do not require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v. Howard, 193 A.D.2d 620; see also People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.