PEOPLE v. LAPP (1999)

 Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress.   The determination of credibility by the hearing court is entitled to great weight, and its determination is supported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. McConnell, 233 A.D.2d 867, 649 N.Y.S.2d 606, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 987, 656 N.Y.S.2d 746, 678 N.E.2d 1362).   Contrary to defendant's contentions, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant (see, People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 112-113, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 324 N.E.2d 872) and the prompt showup identification that followed was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654).   Because defendant was not in custody, Miranda warnings were not needed prior to the initial questioning of defendant (see, People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 894, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289).   Defendant thereafter was given Miranda warnings, and the totality of the circumstances supports the determination that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights (see, People v. Davis, 55 N.Y.2d 731, 733, 447 N.Y.S.2d 149, 431 N.E.2d 634).

Defendant further contends that the court should have imposed a harsher sanction than ordering the testimony of an officer stricken with respect to information contained in handwritten notes that the officer lost.   That contention is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

 Finally, defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective in his cross-examination of the arresting officer.  “The constitutional requirement is met so long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, 938, 527 N.Y.S.2d 920, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 867, 532 N.Y.S.2d 517, 528 N.E.2d 908).   Based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: