Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Even were we to assume arguendo that the oral statement made to the detectives should have been suppressed, there was a definite and pronounced break between the oral statement and the subsequent written and videotaped statements. The substantial intervening period of time and readministration of newMiranda warnings attenuated any possible taint from the allegedly inadmissible first statement (see, People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.