Opinion
June 17, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court should have suppressed a portion of his statement that followed his invocation of the right to remain silent. We disagree. During the hearing, the defendant never claimed that the police failed to honor his right to remain silent and, therefore, that issue is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Mandrachio, 55 N.Y.2d 906, cert denied 457 U.S. 1122; People v Clink, 143 A.D.2d 838). In any event, there is no indication that the defendant ever invoked his right to remain silent (see, People v Padilla, 133 A.D.2d 353).
We also agree with the hearing court that the defendant's arrest did not violate Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573), as the police clearly obtained consent from his mother-in-law to enter her house, where the arrest occurred (see, People v Hixon, 130 A.D.2d 508; People v Richards, 119 A.D.2d 597).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.