Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his videotaped statements should have been suppressed because he did not receive or comprehend Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) is raised for the first time on this appeal and, thus, has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gonzalez, 104 A.D.2d 955). In any event, the videotape shows the defendant receiving and waiving his Miranda rights through an interpreter.
The defendant is also not entitled to suppression of his statements on the ground that they were taken in violation of his right to counsel (see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225), since the record clearly supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's testimony regarding a Bartolomeo violation was "incredible".
We further conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction of two counts of murder in the second degree. The defendant's intent to murder and rob Lo Fat Cheung could be inferred from his theft of the proceeds of Cheung's restaurant after his accomplices repeatedly stabbed Cheung (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375; People v. Castillo, 47 N.Y.2d 270; People v. Pippins, 107 A.D.2d 826). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.