Opinion
June 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's written and videotaped statements since each was rendered after the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91; People v Abreu, 184 A.D.2d 707; People v. Charon, 165 A.D.2d 914; People v Sohn, 148 A.D.2d 553; People v. Benitez, 128 A.D.2d 628).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the merger doctrine precludes his conviction for kidnapping on the basis that it was incidental to the robbery (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Velez, 206 A.D.2d 258; People v Sage, 204 A.D.2d 746). In any event, the manner of the detention constituted a separately cognizable offense for which the defendant was properly convicted (see, People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 146; People v. Cassidy, 40 N.Y.2d 763; People v. Chronis, 209 A.D.2d 712; People v. Sceravino, 193 A.D.2d 824).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by granting the People's motion to consolidate the indictments (see, CPL 200.20 [b], [c]; People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186). The record does not demonstrate any actual prejudice suffered by the defendant. The overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented separately at trial, the defendant had an opportunity to defend against it, and the court instructed the jury to consider the charges, which were easily segregable in the jurors' minds (see, People v. Lane, supra; People v. Hendricks, 192 A.D.2d 552; People v. Rose, 187 A.D.2d 617; People v. Paraschiv, 169 A.D.2d 739; People v. Moses, 169 A.D.2d 786; People v. Smith, 162 A.D.2d 734; People v. Trama, 160 A.D.2d 748; People v. Angelo, 133 A.D.2d 832). Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.