DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to object to the ruling, which merely allowed the prosecutor to ask, without any inquiry into the conviction or violent nature of the crime, whether on November 22, 1994, he attempted to take property from an individual (see People v. Dixon, 172 A.D.2d 768; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601). In any event, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in so ruling (see People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress his stenographically-recorded statement. We agree with the County Court's determination that any taint caused by the illegal arrest was fully dissipated before the defendant made that statement more than three hours after the illegal arrest (see People v. Conyers, 68 N.Y.2d 982). We further note that, before giving this statement, the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights at least twice (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and was informed that his codefendant made a statement implicating him (see People v. Williams, 141 A.D.2d 786; People v. O'Brien, 178 A.D.2d 617).
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(5)).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.