Opinion
April 18, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his postwarning statements. We disagree. Great weight must be accorded to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561). Here, the court's findings that the defendant was given his Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and voluntarily chose to waive them, and that the defendant's statements had not been induced by force or threats are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, the defendant's claims in this regard must be rejected.
In addition, we find that while the People failed to comply with Penal Law § 450.10, such noncompliance was not in bad faith and did not prejudice the defendant. Therefore, dismissal of the indictment or modification of the judgment of conviction is not warranted (see, People v. Bowman, 122 A.D.2d 65).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.