Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court should have suppressed a second inculpatory statement made by him because it was made during a continuous chain of police interrogation. However, it is well settled that, notwithstanding that a defendant made an earlier statement without the benefit of Miranda warnings, a later statement is admissible provided it follows a definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning ( see, People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115). The defendant made a statement to the police, and approximately 5 1/2 hours later, made a second statement to the police. During the time between the first and second statements, the defendant was questioned by police officials other than the arresting officers (one of whom spoke his native language), concerning an unrelated crime, cooperated with the police concerning the unrelated crime, and was assured that he was not being charged with that unrelated crime. The hearing court properly found that this constituted a definite, pronounced break sufficient to find his second statement voluntary ( see, People v. Pabon, 120 A.D.2d 685, 686; see also, People v. Hicks, 226 A.D.2d 938).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.