Opinion
November 21, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The record establishes that the statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials were made after he was fully informed of his Miranda rights. Contrary to the defendant's contention there is no requirement that police officers permit the family members of a competent 19-year-old adult, in custody, to communicate with him (see, People v Crimmins, 64 N.Y.2d 1072; People v. Strawder, 134 A.D.2d 630; People v. Casiano, 123 A.D.2d 712, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 744).
Moreover, since one of the People's witnesses gave testimony which affirmatively damaged their case, they were entitled to introduce evidence that the witness had made a sworn statement which was contrary to such testimony (CPL 60.35; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 N.Y.2d 44). It is of no moment that they may not have been surprised by such testimony (People v. Magee, 128 A.D.2d 811; People v. Davis, 118 A.D.2d 796; People v. De Jesus, 101 A.D.2d 111, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1126).
Under the circumstances, the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.