Opinion
March 2, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The People met their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made ( see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v. Roberson, 249 A.D.2d 148, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 904). We see no reason to disturb the hearing court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). The police were not required to contact the attorney representing defendant on a pending unrelated matter ( People v. Steward, 88 N.Y.2d 496, 502). Defendant was not in custody on the case in which he was represented ( see, People v. Burdo, 91 N.Y.2d 146) and he was never questioned about that case ( see, People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d 632, 637-642). Since defendant was 18 years old at the time of his arrest, he was not a juvenile and it was not necessary for the police to notify his mother ( People v. Diaz, 206 A.D.2d 314, 315).
The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708). Defendant's argument on appeal regarding possible arguments that defense counsel could have made on summation merely amounts to a second-guessing of counsel's trial strategy and does not establish ineffectiveness ( supra).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Defendant's other arguments are without merit.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.