Opinion
February 18, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The detective and Assistant District Attorney who took inculpatory statements from the defendant both testified that at that time they were unaware of the pendency of the prior charges against him. There being no evidence to the contrary, and no reason to inquire as to whether charges were pending, the defendant's motion to suppress statements made after a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights was properly denied (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Servidio, 54 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Sanchez, 109 A.D.2d 761).
In addition, the accidental observation of the defendant by an eyewitness when the defendant was brought to the precinct several hours after the incident was not unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive, since it was unavoidable and not due to any fault of law enforcement officials (see, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v. Gonzalez, 61 A.D.2d 666, affd 46 N.Y.2d 1011). In any event, the hearing court correctly found an independent basis for the witness' in-court identification of the defendant (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Rivera, 108 A.D.2d 935).
The defendant's remaining contention has not been preserved for this court's review (see, People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.