Opinion
Submitted October 20, 2000.
November 21, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered July 6, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and statements he made to law enforcement authorities.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied despite the inaccurate testimony of one of the complainants, which was unintentionally introduced before the Grand Jury. There was sufficient evidence independent of this testimony to support the indictment (see generally, People v. Huston, 88 N.Y.2d 400, 409).
The hearing court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to preclude identification testimony (see, People v. Canute, 190 A.D.2d 745; People v. Ocasio, 183 A.D.2d 921).
The record supports the hearing court's finding that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made after he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.