Opinion
March 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's felony murder conviction arose out of the shooting death of a robbery victim. The People introduced evidence, inter alia, that on three separate occasions the defendant admitted to the key prosecution witness that he had participated in the robbery and shooting. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15), since the jury could reasonably find that the witness who testified as to the defendant's admissions was credible. Although there were inconsistencies in this witness's testimony, they were not so significant as to render her testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Punter, 149 A.D.2d 631).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, CPL 60.50 does not require corroboration of the defendant's admission to the underlying predicate felony of a felony murder prosecution (see, People v Davis, 46 N.Y.2d 780, 781; People v Murray, 40 N.Y.2d 327, 329, cert denied 430 U.S. 948; People v Hamilton, 121 A.D.2d 395). It is sufficient if, as here, the evidence clearly shows that the deceased was a victim of a homicide and that the death was the result of someone's criminality (see, People v Velez, 122 A.D.2d 178).
Further, the hearing court properly denied the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the jacket and hat which he had left at the precinct following his interrogation. The police had probable cause to arrest the defendant when they brought him to the precinct for questioning (see, People v Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130; People v Robinson, 122 A.D.2d 173). Thus, the seizure of the clothing did not result from any illegal police conduct.
The sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in sentencing the defendant (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.