Opinion
January 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly declined to suppress the statement made by the defendant. The defendant was removed from the cell in which he was being held at the police precinct in order to participate in a lineup at which he was identified by the complaining witness. The detective who conducted the lineup then commented to the defendant that he had been identified in the lineup, after which the defendant stated that if the complainant would drop the charges, he would get her property back. The test used in determining whether a defendant's statement is spontaneous is "whether an objective observer with the same knowledge concerning the suspect as the police had would conclude that the remark or conduct of the police was reasonably likely to elicit a response" (People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 319, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007). Under the circumstances herein, we find that the detective's comment was merely a clarification of the situation confronting the defendant, which was not intended or likely to elicit a response, and the defendant's statement was, therefore, spontaneous and admissible (see, People v. Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795; People v. King, 121 A.D.2d 471).
We have considered the defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.