Opinion
February 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court was correct in finding that, although the defendant's arrest was not based on probable cause, certain statements made by him were admissible at trial as they were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality ( see, United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, cert denied 454 U.S. 898). The statements in question were made by the defendant about eight hours after he had received the Miranda warnings no less than three times ( see, People v. Conyers, supra; People v. Jones, 151 A.D.2d 695, 696; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606; People v. Graham, 90 A.D.2d 198, cert denied 464 U.S. 896; People v. Calhoun, 78 A.D.2d 658). In addition, the police did not attempt to exploit the illegal arrest ( see, People v. Corners supra; People v. Rogers, supra), and the defendant's statements were given only after an accomplice, who had been arrested at a different time, and an informant who was in the vicinity of the crime scene during the murder, had implicated him ( see, People v. Jones, supra; People v. Allah, 140 A.D.2d 613; People v. Davis, supra; People v. Mas 110 A.D.2d 915, 916; People v. Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772; People v. Emrick, 89 A.D.2d 787, 788).
Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.