Opinion
September 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his written, videotaped, and audiotaped statements to the police and to the District Attorney's office should have been suppressed. He argues his arrest was not based on probable cause because the People failed to demonstrate that the male witness who provided information to the police was reliable and that this witness had some basis for the knowledge he transmitted. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review since it is raised for the first time on appeal ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Boyd, 244 A.D.2d 497; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 29-45; People v. Brown, 232 A.D.2d 168). In any event, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the witness was reliable and had a basis for the knowledge he transmitted ( see, People v. Parris, 83 N.Y.2d 342, 346; People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423; see also, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his videotaped and audiotaped statements should have been suppressed because he asserted his right to remain silent during questioning ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Mandrachio, 55 N.Y.2d 906, cert denied 457 U.S. 1122; People v. Rogers, 245 A.D.2d 395; People v. Smith, 174 A.D.2d 701). In any event, there was no unequivocal assertion of his right to remain silent ( see, People v. Aguirre, 248 A.D.2d 717; People v. Goss, 162 A.D.2d 466, revd on other grounds 78 N.Y.2d 996; People v. Morton, 231 A.D.2d 927).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ, concur.