Opinion
November 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's finding that the statements made by the defendant prior to his receiving Miranda warnings were spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent. There is no evidence in the record that the arresting officer should have known that her statement to the defendant advising him of the reason for his arrest (see, CPL 140.15) was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 U.S. 291; People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286; People v Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 562; People v Rios, 123 A.D.2d 404). Moreover, the arresting officer did not ask the defendant any questions or engage in any course of conduct subtly designed to elicit a statement from him (see, People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476; People v Harrington, 163 A.D.2d 327). Suppression of the challenged statements was, therefore, properly denied. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.