People v. Cunningham, 1998-04025.

• Decision Date: 28 July 2003
• Docket Number: 1998-04025.
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FRANK CUNNINGHAM, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FRANK CUNNINGHAM, appellant.

1998-04025.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Submitted June 17, 2003.

July 28, 2003.

Estelle Jana Roond, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

Before A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his written statement to the police. The hearing court correctly found that the defendant's right to counsel had not indelibly attached before he gave the inculpatory statement (see People v. Grice, 293 A.D.2d 756, affd ___ N.Y.2d ___ [June 26, 2003]; People v. Pulliam, 292 A.D.2d 399; People v. Lennon, 243 A.D.2d 495; cf. People v. Garafolo, 46 N.Y.2d 592; People v. Pinzon, 44 N.Y.2d 458). "The hearing court's finding should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v. Grice, supra; see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). As the record supports the hearing court's determination, we agree that there was no basis to suppress the statement.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., TOWNES, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.