Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The charges arose out of an incident in which the defendant was observed by police officers tossing a loaded firearm into some bushes. We conclude that the defendant's challenge to the admissibility of a pre- Miranda statement he made to one officer, while in a patrol car, in response to a question asked by the officer, regarding the whereabouts of a gun, is unpreserved for appellate review because its admissibility was not objected to during the Huntley hearing (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029). In any event, this statement would fall within the public safety exception of the Miranda rule (see, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649). Further, the defendant's statements to another officer, in the precinct house, were voluntarily made after he was properly given Miranda warnings (see, People v. Casiano, 123 A.D.2d 712).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.