Opinion
March 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, upon an independent view of the facts, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Two eyewitnesses positively identified defendant as one of a group of five assailants who robbed and viciously beat the victim. Moreover, the witnesses observed defendant slash the victim with what appeared to be a box cutter, resulting in the severing of the victim's earlobe. Although the victim could not identify his attackers because a member of the group knocked off his eyeglasses, his testimony nevertheless corroborated much of the account given by the eyewitnesses.
Defendant's claim that the trial court improperly precluded his attorney from eliciting statements made after his arrest is unpreserved for this Court's review. Moreover, defendant's later statement made at the precinct was unrelated to the earlier inculpatory statement in terms of both substance and time.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statement he made after his arrest despite the fact that no Miranda warnings had yet been administered because the statement was spontaneous (People v. Hylton, 198 A.D.2d 301, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 925).
Defendant's claim that the court erred in admitting the box cutter recovered from his codefendant is unpreserved for this Court's review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that the evidence was relevant to the People's case (People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.