Opinion
March 21, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's arguments on appeal turn on issues of credibility. It is well settled that issues of credibility are primarily to be determined by the hearing court, whose determination is entitled to great weight on appeal (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). The hearing court, in denying suppression of the defendant's inculpatory statements, resolved the credibility issues in favor of the People. Its finding that the defendant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436) is supported by the evidence, which includes the defendant's own videotaped statement. Furthermore, a review of the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38) demonstrates that the defendant's statements were given to the police voluntarily. As the record supports the hearing court's determinations, there is no basis to disturb them on appeal (see, People v. Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808, 810, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 704).
The defendant's contention that his confession was not adequately corroborated is without merit (see, CPL 60.50; People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 824). The defendant's argument that the verdict was repugnant is similarly unavailing (see, People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048; People v Bruckman, 46 N.Y.2d 1020, rearg dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 710, 805; People v. Crimmins, 99 A.D.2d 439, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1072; see also, People v. Davis, 46 N.Y.2d 780). While the trial court may have committed error in permitting the cross-examination of the defendant during which the prosecutor alleged the commission of uncharged crimes, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt there is no reasonable possibility that such error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v. Evans, 131 A.D.2d 502; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056; People v. McKay, 101 A.D.2d 960, 961).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit (see, People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Lopez, 123 A.D.2d 360, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 915; see also, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.