Opinion
February 25, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
The record of the hearing held on defendant's motion to suppress contains no evidence that any agent of the police or District Attorney deliberately obstructed defendant in any attempt to contact members of his family during his prearraignment detention. Suppression of inculpatory statements made during such detention is therefore not warranted on that basis ( People v Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 100; People v Cavagnaro, 99 A.D.2d 534). Nor is suppression warranted because, prior to a final recorded statement, an Assistant District Attorney advised defendant that if he could not afford one, an attorney would be provided at the time of his arraignment. Although such an admonition is arguably defective ( cf. People v Hutchinson, 59 N.Y.2d 923; but see, California v Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 ; United States v Contreras, 667 F.2d 976), defendant was given unimpeached Miranda warnings on four prior occasions and was explicitly advised of his right to have an attorney present during questioning. Having been repeatedly and completely advised of his rights and having waived them, defendant was not even entitled to a further admonition prior to the recorded statement ( People v Johnson, 49 A.D.2d 663, affd 40 N.Y.2d 882; see also, People v Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, 562; People v Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 652; People v Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, 29). Under these circumstances, it is clear that the defendant's rights were fully conveyed to him as required by Miranda v Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436) and that such rights were knowingly and intelligently waived ( see, California v Prysock, supra; United States v Contreras, supra; People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
Finally, any delay in arraignment would simply be a factor in determining voluntariness of the statements ( People v Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1081; People v Holland, 48 N.Y.2d 861) and on the record before us we decline to overturn the factual findings made by the suppression court ( People v Armstead, supra). The delay was not the result of a calculated police attempt to deprive the defendant of counsel ( cf. People v Cooper, 101 A.D.2d 1, 9-10). Titone, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.