Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that the defendant's statements were spontaneously made and were not the product of conduct which the police should have known was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response ( see, Rhode Is. v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301; People v. Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). The evidence adduced at the hearing further reveals that the photographic array identification procedures were neither improperly conducted nor unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Bartholomew, 237 A.D.2d 371; People v. Rivera, 135 A.D.2d 667; People v. Magee, 122 A.D.2d 227).
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 ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.