Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his oral and videotaped statements, since each was rendered after the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91; People v Mercado, 198 A.D.2d 380; People v Abreu, 184 A.D.2d 707; People v Washington, 182 A.D.2d 791; People v Charon, 165 A.D.2d 914; People v Sohn, 148 A.D.2d 553; People v Benitez, 128 A.D.2d 628).
Moreover, we agree with the hearing court's conclusion that the People's notice of intention to introduce the statements at trial was sufficient under CPL 710.30 to apprise the defendant that they would be introducing a sketch rendered by the defendant which demonstrated where he disposed of the murder weapon, since the statements contained the sum and substance of what the drawing indicated (see, People v Bennett, 56 N.Y.2d 837; People v Reid, 215 A.D.2d 507; People v Jordan, 216 A.D.2d 489; People v Holmes, 170 A.D.2d 534).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for the robbery and murder of one of the victims (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.