Opinion
December 23, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the statements he made to the detectives at his residence and at the station house. The questioning at the defendant's residence was in a noncustodial setting, and the police did not exert a coercive influence over him (see, Minnesota v Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431; People v Bell, 73 N.Y.2d 153, 162; People v Matus, 166 A.D.2d 464, 465). The defendant received appropriate Miranda warnings at the station house prior to making any statement there (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v Bastidas, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 1007 [statement made in noncustodial setting prior to Miranda warnings does not taint a subsequent custodial statement made after Miranda warnings]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of legitimate advocacy when he referred on cross-examination and summation to the "lies" the defendant told to the police officers and the victim's family is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Comer, 73 N.Y.2d 955; People v Gaines, 158 A.D.2d 540; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252), and, in any event, is without merit. The defendant conceded in his statements to the police and in his testimony that he had "made up" the story he told the officers and the victim's family out of fear that he would be arrested. The defense counsel, several times during summation, acknowledged that the defendant had lied. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor properly impeached the defendant's credibility with those prior statements (see, People v Merchant, 150 A.D.2d 730).
We also find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.