Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's principal contention is that he invoked the right to counsel at the beginning of a videotaped interview by an Assistant District Attorney, and that his statement made thereafter should have been suppressed (see, People v Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203). We find that the defendant did unequivocally invoke his right to counsel, and thus the Assistant District Attorney was obligated to cease questioning and honor the defendant's request (see, People v. Stroh, 48 N.Y.2d 1000 ). However, even though the hearing court should have suppressed the videotaped statement, a reversal of the defendant's conviction is not warranted. On the videotape the defendant reiterated the story that he had already told the police twice before after waiving his right to the assistance of counsel. In addition, the defendant's statement was virtually identical to the account given by five eyewitnesses. Thus, any error in the admission of the videotaped statement was harmless, since the substantive content of the statement was either duplicative of other statements made by the defendant which were properly admitted into evidence or cumulative to other properly received evidence (see, People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 659; People v. Drelich, 123 A.D.2d 441).
We find no merit to the defendant's contentions with regard to his sentence. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.