Opinion
July 13, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court's failure to suppress his statement, to wit, "[i]t's my gun * * * She was just holding it", was improper. The record supports a finding that the defendant volunteered the confession to the police without interrogation, and there is no indication that the defendant was being threatened or coerced (see, People v. Kaye, 25 N.Y.2d 139). Moreover, great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and its determination should not be disturbed as it is supported by the record (see, People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the People failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because his conviction was based solely on his statement, since CPL 60.50 proscribes the conviction of a defendant "of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed". The purpose of this statute is "`to avert "the danger that a crime may be confessed when [in fact] no such crime * * * has been committed by any one"'" (People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 570, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 824, quoting from People v. Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42, 45, and People v. Lytton, 257 N.Y. 310, 314). A crime was committed in this case. A loaded firearm was recovered from the defendant's girlfriend in the hallway of an apartment building where the defendant had gone to settle a dispute. The defendant, who was in the hallway, made an oral confession. "The necessary additional evidence may be found in the presence of [the] defendant at the scene of the crime, his guilty appearance afterward, or other circumstances supporting an inference of guilt * * * Corroboration existing, the evidence as a whole must, of course, establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Booden, 69 N.Y.2d 185, 187). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29), and bearing in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are generally matters for resolution by the jury (see, People v Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 648, 880), the evidence in this record was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant was not denied a fair trial by the alleged misconduct of the prosecutrix during her summation (see, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Finally, the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86).
We have reviewed the defendant's other contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) or without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.