Opinion
May 27, 1999
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statements to Nassau County Detectives Richard Lane and Martin Alger were improperly admitted at trial because, the hearing court had suppressed those statements. This contention is without merit since, it was the defendant himself, not the People, who elicited the subject statements during the defendant's cross-examination of Detective Lane ( see generally, People v. Gole, 228 A.D.2d 696).
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant's unsolicited statements to Lieutenant Frank Guiddice which were made following the interrogation by Detectives Lane and Alger. Some time after Lane and Alger left the interrogation room, Lieutenant Guiddice entered and informed the defendant that he needed to fill out a physical fitness form. Thereupon, and with no prompting or questioning on the part of Lieutenant Guiddice, who was not involved in the investigation, the defendant stated that he had murdered Robert Silk and would inform Guiddice of the location of the body in exchange for a deal on his sentence. Contrary to the defendant's contention; his statements were not induced by the functional equivalent of questioning but, rather, were spontaneous and were properly admitted into evidence ( see, People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007; People v. Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711; People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648; People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289).
Moreover, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that certain remarks by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the remarks in question were proper rhetorical comment or responsive to the defendant's summation ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Rodrigues, 258 A.D.2d 482; People v. Pierce, 219 A.D.2d 856; People v. Wilson, 181 A.D.2d 562; People v. Gould, 181 A.D.2d 543).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.