Opinion
November 14, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that his confessions to the police and an Assistant District Attorney should have been suppressed because an unrelated case was pending against him at the time he confessed. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the interrogating officer was not aware that charges were pending against the defendant. Accordingly, the officer cannot be charged with knowledge thereof. Nor, under the circumstances, was the officer under a duty to inquire into whether defendant was represented by counsel (see, People v Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 118-120; People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91; People v. Servidio, 54 N.Y.2d 951).
We find that the defendant's confessions, as well as his being observed by witnesses near the scene at the approximate time of the commission of the crime, provided ample corroboration of the accomplice's testimony (see, People v. Burgin, 40 N.Y.2d 953; People v. Harris, 126 A.D.2d 745, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1004).
Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.