Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials since the hearing testimony established that his statements were voluntarily given after he was properly informed of his Miranda rights and agreed to waive them ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72; People v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 562). Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that his statements should be suppressed because he was denied his constitutional right to counsel ( see, People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331; People v. Lovette, 212 A.D.2d 639).
The defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.