Opinion
October 9, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. Since defendant was charged as a juvenile offender under CPL 1.20 (42), he was not entitled to the protections of Family Court Act § 305.2 (7) and § 724 (b) (ii) ( People v. Abiodun L., 241 A.D.2d 774; People v. Vargas, 169 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Bonaparte, 130 A.D.2d 673). In any event, defendant was afforded the protections of both CPL 140.20 (6) and the above-cited provisions of the Family Court Act, since his legal guardians, who were immediately notified of defendant's arrest, were present at the time defendant was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, and during the brief questioning that followed ( see, People v. Richardson, 202 A.D.2d 227; People v. McCray, 198 A.D.2d 200, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 927). We conclude, from the totality of the hearing evidence, that the Department of Social Services employees were free of conflict of interest and acted as defendant's proper legal guardians, and that defendant's statements were made voluntarily and intelligently ( see, Fare v Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724-727).
The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of People's witnesses ( see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.