Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to the police, because he was arrested without probable cause, and because, contrary to the hearing court's finding, he invoked his right to counsel when he was arrested.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, the codefendant's statements made to the police and to an Assistant District Attorney specifically implicated the defendant in the crime and provided probable cause for the defendant's arrest (see, People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v Crawford, 113 A.D.2d 771). Further, the findings of the hearing court that the defendant was given his Miranda warnings and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights and confessed to the police are supported by the record (see, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851).
We also note that the court did not err in admitting the codefendant's confession into evidence at this joint trial, since the confessions of the defendant and the codefendant were interlocking (see, People v Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, cert granted ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 2888; People v Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181, cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York, 443 U.S. 912; People v McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550; People v Brensic, 119 A.D.2d 281).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, J.P., Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.