The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion, made pursuant to CPL 200.20(3), for a severance of counts relating to offenses that had been properly joined as "the same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20 [c]). The evidence as to the two incidents was capable of being easily segregated by the jury (see People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015). There was no significant variance in the quantity of proof; on the contrary, the evidence of guilt as to both incidents was overwhelming. Defendant's assertion of a need to testify as to one incident but not the other was unconvincing (see People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9), particularly since his proposed testimony would have opened the door to evidence of the crimes charged in the second incident (see People v. Wright, 300 A.D.2d 191, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 634).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements. The hearing court properly credited police testimony that defendant, whose native language is Portugese, was asked, through a Portugese interpreter, each question on a Miranda card, and that defendant answered "yes" in Portugese and wrote that same answer after each question on the card, including the inquiry as to his willingness to answer questions. Defendant's initial hesitancy in affixing his signature to the card did not constitute an invocation of his right to remain silent, since he had expressly agreed to answer questions (see People v. Robinson, 287 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 680; People v. DaCosta, 201 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 871).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence recovered pursuant to two search warrants. Based on the commission of the crimes described in the warrant applications, it was reasonable to infer that the clothes worn during the crime, the weapon used, the contraband taken from the victim and the items purchased with the victim's credit cards, would most likely be in defendant's residence or gym bag only three weeks after the murder.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.