Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. It is clear that the initial stop of the defendant's vehicle was lawful since the police officers observed him commit a traffic violation (see, People v Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393; People v Coggins, 175 A.D.2d 924). Further, we find that the conduct of the police officers upon the lawful stop of the vehicle was in all respects proper (see, Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106; People v Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, cert denied 493 U.S. 966; People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 604-605; People v Clark, 172 A.D.2d 848).
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the written statement he gave to the police. The record supports the Supreme Court's findings that the defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), and voluntarily chose to waive them, and that the defendant's statement was not induced by fraud or coercion on the part of police personnel (see, People v Valenti, 143 A.D.2d 955).
Further, 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.