Opinion
November 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, the defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the hearing to establish that he was given Miranda warnings before making the challenged statements to the police. We disagree. Officer Panchyn testified that he read the defendant his Miranda warnings from a card that was in his possession and admitted into evidence at the hearing. Panchyn further testified that the defendant acknowledged his understanding of each of the questions on the card and thereafter agreed to make a statement in which he admitted to being at the scene of the crime with three other males. Under the circumstances of this case, we perceive no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that the statements in question were given freely and voluntarily after the defendant received proper Miranda warnings (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
In addition, we disagree with the defendant's contention that the hearing court should have suppressed identification testimony by two eyewitnesses as the product of unduly suggestive, out-of-court identification procedures (see, People v. Dobbins, 155 A.D.2d 551; People v. Tedesco, 143 A.D.2d 155). In any event, given the testimony of an accomplice and the defendant's own statements, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different result without the challenged identification testimony and, therefore, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.