Opinion
February 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant urges that the statement that he made to police shortly after his arrest, while he was being transported to the station house, should have been suppressed because he had not been advised of his Miranda rights at the time. We disagree. The police are not required to take affirmative steps to prevent a person in custody from making an incriminating statement (see, People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294; People v Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187, 220-221, affd 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 77). Here, the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity and without any invitation, urging, or coaxing (see, People v. Lynes, supra, at 294).
The court properly declined the defendant's request to charge robbery in the second degree as a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree. There was no reasonable view of the evidence which would have supported a finding that the defendant committed the lesser but not the greater crime (see, People v Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427, 430).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.