Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the evening of December 6, 1990, the defendant and four accomplices ambushed two men in the stairwell of an apartment building in order to take their shearling coats. During the attempted robbery, one of the defendant's accomplices fatally shot one of the victims. The other victim escaped and subsequently testified against the perpetrators.
The record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant waived his constitutional rights after they were administered to him from a card (see, People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010; People v. Harris, 137 A.D.2d 619). None of the defendant's contentions warrant a finding that his statements were made as a result of false promises of favorable treatment (see, People v. Sumeriski, 119 A.D.2d 999), and any deception by the police was not so fundamentally unfair as to have denied the defendant due process (see, People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820).
The hearing court properly found that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon the statements of the surviving victim and one of the defendant's accomplices, both of whom named him as a perpetrator (see, People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Burton, 194 A.D.2d 683; People v. Pagan, 184 A.D.2d 738; People v. Scherifi, 147 A.D.2d 663, 664).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, he failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reasonable grounds to believe that his accomplices were armed. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied his request for a charge pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25 (3) (see, People v. Simmons, 143 A.D.2d 857; People v. Brailsford, 106 A.D.2d 648; see generally, People v. Lewis, 160 A.D.2d 815, 816; People v. Johnson, 169 A.D.2d 498, 499-500).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to support all of the counts of which the defendant was convicted.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.