Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress oral statements made to the police following his arrest. The hearing court's findings that the defendant had been adequately advised of his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and voluntarily chose to waive them, and that the defendant's statements had not been induced by force or coercion are supported by the record.
Moreover, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which sought to suppress evidence discovered during an inventory search of his vehicle. Having a sufficient basis to conclude that the defendant's vehicle had been utilized in the commission of the crime, the officers had the right to impound the vehicle and inventory its contents pursuant to police department procedure (see, e.g., Colorado v Bertine, 479 U.S. 367; South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364; People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386).
We further find that the accomplice's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the receipt identified as having come from the burglarized premises and by the defendant's inculpatory statement (see, People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299, 305; People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629).
Finally we find no basis for modification of the sentence (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.