Opinion
March 21, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The People sustained their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession made by the defendant subsequent to his having been taken into police custody was voluntarily made (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 78). The hearing court properly credited the testimony of the interrogating police officer that the Miranda warnings were administered to the defendant and that the defendant indicated a willingness to give a statement after acknowledging that he understood those rights. The determination of the suppression court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
In addition, we note that the defendant did not object at trial to those portions of the charge concerning the voluntariness of his confession upon which he now requests reversal. Accordingly, the defendant's claims are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05) and we find that reversal is not warranted as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
In imposing sentence, the court properly applied the appropriate sentencing principles, including deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and isolation (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.