Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the defendant's written and videotaped statements were not suppressible as the fruits of an illegal arrest (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573). The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the hearing court's conclusion that the warrantless entry into the apartment of the defendant's mother, which law enforcement officials had ascertained to be the defendant's last residence of record, was effected with the consent of the defendant's mother (see, People v. Levine, 174 A.D.2d 757; see also, People v. Major, 195 A.D.2d 1051; People v. Rosato, 193 A.D.2d 1052; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 607). In any event, even if we were to conclude that the defendant's arrest violated Payton v. New York (supra), the statements in question would still have been admissible at the defendant's 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; see, e.g., People v. Green, 182 A.D.2d 704; People v. Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695; People v. Davis, supra).
The record supports the hearing court's finding that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made after the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; see, People v. Levine, supra, at 759; People v. Quinones, 155 A.D.2d 244).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.