Opinion
June 17, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant claims, inter alia, that his inculpatory statements to the police were made involuntarily, as a result of police coercion; and further, that he had not been advised of his Miranda rights before making the statements. These claims were fully addressed at the pretrial suppression hearing, and were rejected by the hearing court. The hearing court's determination of voluntariness is overwhelmingly supported by the credible and consistent testimony of the police officers, and by defendant's own videotaped statement, wherein he was fully advised of his Miranda rights and stated that he understood them and wished to answer questions without an attorney present ( see, People v Epps, 104 A.D.2d 1047). The hearing court was faced with a question of credibility, and had the opportunity to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh the testimony first hand. We perceive no basis to overturn its determination ( see, People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726; People v. Vail, 90 A.D.2d 917).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319), we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict in all respects. To the extent that defendant's numerous other contentions are based on matters contained in the record, they have been examined and found to be devoid of merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.