Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573), is inapplicable to arrests made outside of his home in his yard (see, People v Roe, 73 N.Y.2d 1004; People v Keller, 148 A.D.2d 958).
The defendant's contention that his statement was involuntary is without merit. Although the defendant was interviewed by police officers for as many as nine hours following his arrest, he was promptly read his Miranda rights, he was not subjected to continuous interrogation, and he was not denied sleep or food when requested, prior to obtaining his confession (see, People v Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 851).
The off-the-record pre- Sandoval conference before the defendant appeared in court did not require the defendant's presence. The record indicates that the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the discussion of the Sandoval issues when he was later produced (see, People v Hailey, 221 A.D.2d 466; People v Swift, 213 A.D.2d 355; People v Watson, 205 A.D.2d 398).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Joy, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.