Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his inculpatory written and audiotaped statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, this contention is without merit since the defendant's voluntary and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights was established at the Huntley hearing (see, People v Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72) by the unrefuted testimony of the Fire Marshal regarding the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's confession (see, Clewis v Texas, 386 U.S. 707; People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38).
Moreover, the hearing court properly determined that the defendant's written and audiotaped statements should not be suppressed even though the initial arrest was invalid for lack of probable cause. The causal connection between the illegal arrest and the statements was sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint of the illegal arrest since the statements were obtained by the Fire Marshal who made a subsequent, valid re-arrest (see, Dunaway v New York, 442 U.S. 200, 216; Brown v Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602; People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 407; People v Dyla, 142 A.D.2d 423, 430-431).
The defendant contends that reversible error took place when the prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine him with respect to a threatening letter that the defendant had allegedly written to the defendant's wife. However, even if it could be said that the cross-examination strayed from acceptable bounds, any error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Wachtel, 124 A.D.2d 613).
Finally, the court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences since the assault and the arson were separate acts, neither of which was a material element of the other (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 361; People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839; People v Scandell, 143 A.D.2d 423). Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.