Opinion
April 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that exigent circumstances justifying his warrantless arrest while he was sleeping in the apartment of an acquaintance were not present because the People failed to demonstrate that there was a substantial likelihood that he might flee. We disagree. Evidence of flight is only one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a warrantless arrest is justified (see, People v Levine, 174 A.D.2d 757; People v Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524, cert denied 495 U.S. 906; People v Green, 103 A.D.2d 362, 364). Given the totality of the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the warrantless entry into the premises where the defendant was arrested was proper.
Even if we were to conclude that the arrest of the defendant was unlawful, certain statements made by him would still have been admissible at the trial because they were sufficiently attenuated from the arrest to have been purged of any taint (see, People v Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, cert denied 454 U.S. 898). These statements were made by the defendant over 8 hours after his arrest and after he had been advised of his Miranda warnings at least twice (see, People v Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695; People v Conyers, supra).
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation. While the prosecutor's sympathetic portrayal of the victim and several of his other remarks would have been better left unsaid, to some extent they could be considered a fair response to the remarks made by defense counsel during his summation (see, People v Lewis, 140 A.D.2d 714; People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 190-191) or were inferences which could be properly drawn from the facts in evidence (see, People v Koleskor, 131 A.D.2d 879; People v Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272). Certainly, the remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.