Opinion
May 14, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress his statements is without merit. It is well settled that the hearing court's determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record (see, People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561). The record in this case amply supports the court's conclusion that the defendant was fully apprised of his constitutional rights, that he acknowledged that he understood them, and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived them prior to speaking with the detective (see, e.g., People v. Irby, 115 A.D.2d 661). The defendant's further challenge to the credibility of the detective is unavailing, as the detective provided a logical and consistent account of the events surrounding the questioning of the defendant, and the hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in crediting his uncontroverted testimony. Accordingly, we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing court's determination.
Moreover, in neglecting to raise his claim of a violation of his right to counsel before the hearing court, the defendant "has deprived this court of an adequate record upon which to exercise a reasoned and intelligent review of his contentions" (People v Underwood, 126 A.D.2d 584).
The defendant's challenge to the propriety of the trial court's Sandoval ruling has been waived by his plea of guilty (see, e.g., People v. Johnson, 141 A.D.2d 848). In any event, were we to reach the issue, we would conclude that the court engaged in a careful balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect in reaching an appropriate compromise ruling on the Sandoval application (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644; People v. Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697). Mangano, P.J., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.