Opinion
March 21, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Amaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The arresting officer was justified in relying on the information related to him by other officers through radio transmissions and that information was sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210). Since the defendant failed to challenge the reliability of those radio communications, any "question regarding the basis of the sending officer's information has not been preserved for review" (People v. Reddick, 107 A.D.2d 721, affd 65 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Ward, 95 A.D.2d 233, 240).
Furthermore, although the defendant's brief initial statement regarding his whereabouts on the day of the crime was properly suppressed since that statement was made before the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, the remainder of his statements, which were all given after he was advised repeatedly of his Miranda rights, were properly admitted at trial since there was no showing that the subsequent warnings were insufficient to protect the defendant's rights (see, People v. Smith, 124 A.D.2d 1003). The defendant was not subjected to such continuous interrogation as to render the subsequent warnings ineffectual (cf., People v. Bastidas, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, rearg denied 68 N.Y.2d 907; People v. Winchell, 64 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882).
Finally, we note that the defendant's statements were not obtained in violation of his right to counsel despite his representation by an attorney on an unrelated pending charge. When asked about that charge, the defendant replied that it was "all taken care of", he stated that he had no further court dates, and he denied being represented by an attorney with respect to that charge at that time. Despite their subsequent good-faith efforts to ascertain further information about that charge and whether the defendant had legal representation thereon, the police found nothing to indicate that the defendant was not telling them the truth and they were justified in relying on the defendant's representations (People v. Lucarano, 61 N.Y.2d 138; People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.