Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly found that one of the complainants, who was 11 years old at the time of trial, could be sworn as a witness. The voir dire revealed that he was aware of a moral duty to tell the truth and that God would punish him if he lied ( see, People v Velez, 212 A.D.2d 819; People v Charlton, 192 A.D.2d 757; People v McDaniel, 165 A.D.2d 817; cf., People v Maldonado, 199 A.D.2d 563).

In addition, the court correctly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his inculpatory statement to a caseworker for the Child Welfare Administration. The defendant was not in custody when he met with the caseworker in the office of a public school, the caseworker was not a law enforcement official or an agent of such a person, and there was no indication that the statement was not voluntary ( see, CPL 60.45; People v Tankleff, 199 A.D.2d 550, affd 84 N.Y.2d 992; People v Clauss, 104 A.D.2d 725).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886) or without merit ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.