Opinion
September 14, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that statements made by him to police officers should have been suppressed because they were the result of physical beatings he received from the officers. The trial court's denial of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his statements was proper, inasmuch as the record reflects a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his rights (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458; People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285). The defendant's allegations that he was physically and psychologically abused by the officers were contradicted by the officers' testimony, by the defendant's appearance at his videotaped statement, by his failure to complain to the authorities and by his failure to seek medical attention (see, People v. Crawford, 113 A.D.2d 771; People v Dean, 112 A.D.2d 947, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 918; People v. Chalos, 111 A.D.2d 827, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 918; People v. Alver, 111 A.D.2d 339). Under the circumstances, the voluntariness of the defendant's statements presented an issue of credibility and the Supreme Court's determination of that issue, which is fully supported by the record, should not be disturbed on appeal (People v. Alver, supra; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561).
Furthermore, we find that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the precinct, and the questioning of him by the police prior to their advising him of his Miranda rights was investigatory rather than custodial (see, People v. Morales, 42 N.Y.2d 129, cert denied 434 U.S. 1018; People v. Yanus, 92 A.D.2d 674; People v. Krystof, 84 A.D.2d 566). Once the investigation focused on the defendant as a suspect, all questioning stopped and the defendant was provided with full Miranda warnings.
Finally, the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.