The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joel Grubert, Appellant

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joel Grubert, Appellant. [MAJORITY] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered February 15, 1990, convicting him of attempted kidnapping in the second degree, attempted coercion in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, statements made by him to law enforcement officials, and physical evidence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The hearing court did not err in refusing to suppress the defendant’s confession. There is nothing in the hearing minutes which would indicate that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to remain silent (cf., People v Valerius, 31 NY2d 51). Although the defendant argues that there was evidence adduced at trial which would indicate otherwise, evidence subsequently admitted on trial cannot be used to support or contradict the hearing testimony. Accordingly, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, cert denied 456 US 1010). Furthermore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the knife found in his vehicle since it was recovered during an inventory search and the vehicle was impounded at the time (see, People v Thomas, 163 AD2d 438; People v Bute, 172 AD2d 550; People v Gallego, 155 AD2d 687). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). We find that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Fiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.