Opinion
December 18, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his confession. Although there was evidence that the defendant had, at the time of this arrest, a pending case arising from an arrest in Suffolk County, there is no indication that the arresting officer in this case knew or should have known of the pending matter. In this respect, we note that upon inquiry, the defendant expressly denied his involvement in the pending matter (see, People v Berring, 145 A.D.2d 430; People v Hovanec, 128 A.D.2d 893). Accordingly, the officer's questioning the defendant in this instance about this case did not violate his right to counsel (see, People v Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111; People v Lucarano, 61 N.Y.2d 138; People v Green, 138 A.D.2d 516).
Furthermore, we find that the record overwhelmingly supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant gave informed and voluntary consent to a search of his living quarters. In this regard, it was established that the consent was given both prior to and after the defendant's arrest. Additionally, the defendant was cooperative rather than evasive while in police custody, and volunteered inculpatory information regarding his participation in the instant offense (see, People v Thomas, 144 A.D.2d 506; People v Credidio, 141 A.D.2d 661; cf., People v Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122). Thus, there was no error in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence obtained as a result of the search.
In addition, we reject the defendant's contention that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances and considered in its totality, defense counsel's representation was effective within the standard enunciated in People v Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; see also, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 426; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.