Opinion
June 19, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find the hearing court was correct in finding that, although the defendant's arrest was not based on probable cause, certain statements made by him were admissible at trial as they were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be purged of the taint created by the illegality (see, United States v Crews, 445 U.S. 463; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982; People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, cert denied 454 U.S. 898). The record reveals that the statements not suppressed by the hearing court were made by the defendant over four hours after his arrest and after the defendant had received Miranda warnings no less than twice (see, People v. Conyers, supra; People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606; People v. Graham, 90 A.D.2d 198; People v. Calhoun, 78 A.D.2d 658). In addition, the police did not attempt to exploit the illegal arrest (see, People v. Conyers, supra; People v. Rogers, supra) and the defendant's statements that were used at trial were given only after an accomplice, who had been arrested at a different time and a different place, implicated him (see, People v Allah, 140 A.D.2d 613; People v. Davis, supra; People v. Mas, 110 A.D.2d 915, 916; People v. Matos, 93 A.D.2d 772; People v. Emrick, 89 A.D.2d 787, 788).
The defendant's contention that Officer Smith's showup identification of the defendant shortly after he had fled from the vehicle which the officer was pursuing is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant never moved to suppress the officer's identification testimony nor did he raise an objection to its admission at trial (see, People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22). Furthermore, the defendant's challenge to the propriety of the prosecutor's summation was not preserved for appellate review since no objection was made thereto at trial (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks, which the defendant contends constituted prosecutorial misconduct, were either proper responses to the defense summation (see, People v. Corley, 140 A.D.2d 536; People v. Street, 124 A.D.2d 841; People v. Freeman, 123 A.D.2d 784, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 711) or fair comment on the evidence (see, People v. Allen, 99 A.D.2d 592, affd 64 N.Y.2d 979; People v. Ayala, 120 A.D.2d 600). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.