Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his inculpatory statement. It is well settled that the factual findings and credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Rose, 204 A.D.2d 745; People v Ennis, 158 A.D.2d 467). In this case, there was ample evidence to support the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statement was preceded by the administration of Miranda warnings and was voluntarily made. The court properly credited the hearing testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which demonstrated that the defendant received, acknowledged, and voluntarily waived his rights both prior to the commencement of police questioning and at the time he initially inculpated himself in the commission of the crime (see, People v Rose, supra; People v Griffin, 186 A.D.2d 820; People v Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 562).
The defendant's repugnancy claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v Collins, 203 A.D.2d 584; People v Samuels, 203 A.D.2d 494), and we decline to consider the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.