Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the defense counsel's performance in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case ( see, People v. Vanterpool, 143 A.D.2d 282), we find that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation.
The trial court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police with respect to the instant charges. Those statements were made to New York police while the defendant was in custody in New Jersey on charges unrelated to the instant charges ( see, People v. Grant, 91 N.Y.2d 989). At the time of the questioning, the defendant was not represented by counsel and had not requested counsel ( cf., People v. Burdo, 91 N.Y.2d 146; People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167). Further, under New Jersey law, no right to counsel had indelibly attached to the New Jersey charges ( see, State of New Jersey v. Tucker, 137 N.J. 259, 645 A.2d 111). Accordingly, the defendant's rights vis-a-vis the pending New Jersey charges were not violated ( see, People v. Bing, 146 A.D.2d 178, 184, affd 76 N.Y.2d 331). Suppressing those statements would not serve any interest New York may have in protecting the defendant's right to counsel ( see, People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 345, 351, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.