Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's oral and written statements to the police and the physical evidence later found in his apartment.
The circumstances leading up to the defendant's initial inculpatory statement were entirely consistent with an investigatory rather than a custodial interview (see, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837; People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356, 358; People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907; cf., People v. McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634; People v. Travis, 162 A.D.2d 807). The defendant's statements were not the product of impermissible coercion; neither the conduct of the defendant, nor the conduct of the police, nor the conditions of the interrogation, indicate that those statements were made involuntarily (see, People v. Llamas, 186 A.D.2d 685, 686).
The defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during the investigative interview was effective, notwithstanding that he was represented by counsel on another pending charge at that time (see, People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331; People v. Washington, 182 A.D.2d 791; People v. Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541).
After the police properly took the defendant's oral and written statements, the defendant voluntarily signed a form consenting to a search of his apartment. That search resulted in the seizure of certain physical evidence. Therefore, the physical evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 U.S. 291; People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851, supra; People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d, supra, at 358).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor employed three peremptory challenges during jury selection in a racially discriminatory manner (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) is unpreserved for appellate review as to two of these challenges (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891; People v. Holland, 179 A.D.2d 822; People v. Campanella, 176 A.D.2d 813). In any event, the claim as to all three is without merit (see, People v. Hopkinson, 173 A.D.2d 731; see also, People v. Epps, 176 A.D.2d 293; cf., People v. Rodney, 192 A.D.2d 626).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.