Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
According great weight to the determination of the hearing court ( see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, 83), which found the People's witnesses more credible than those produced by the defendant, we find that the record supports the conclusions that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the precinct, consented to having his photograph taken, and made an oral inculpatory statement after having knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436).
Review of the trial record also establishes that the court properly permitted the People to impeach the credibility of defense witness Garfield Wright by the use of a prior inconsistent statement, namely, a videotaped statement he had given the police. Wright, the admitted accomplice of the defendant, who had been convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of crimes charged herein, had retracted on the witness stand his prior statements that he and the defendant were involved in the instant shooting, and instead had rendered testimony identifying a different accomplice. A proper foundation had been laid for the impeachment of this witness by this method ( see, People v Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-411 [Farrell 11th ed]).
The court's jury instructions to the effect that prior inconsistent statements were to be used only in the evaluation of the witness's credibility were proper and sufficient to apprise the jury as to the use of a videotaped statement ( see, 1 CJI [NY] 7.22, at 304).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.