Opinion
May 28, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.).
Respondent was questioned in the presence of her stepfather in an annex to the designated youth room, thus satisfying the requirements of Family Court Act § 305.2 (4) (b) (see, Matter of Luis N., 112 A.D.2d 86). Moreover, respondent's statements were made voluntarily after she acknowledged her understanding of her Miranda rights. We note the fact that the police diligently searched for respondent's relatives for six hours while she was detained. This detention does not provide a basis upon which to suppress the statements (see, Matter of Raphael A., 53 A.D.2d 592). The corroboration testimony of the complainants and witnesses satisfied the requirement of Family Court Act § 344.2 (3) (see, People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560).
We have considered respondent's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.