Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cirigliano, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly admitted into evidence at the trial under Indictment No. 8414/90 both the physical evidence and the defendant's pre- Miranda, in-custody statement to the police. The police had ample justification to stop the defendant for the purpose of inquiry and to subsequently detain him (see, People v Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444; People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v Walker, 192 A.D.2d 1101). The succeeding identification of the defendant provided the police with probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Martinez, supra). Moreover, the defendant's in-custody statement was given to the police spontaneously, without any invitation or urging. Under these circumstances, the statement was not subject to suppression (see, People v Finn, 180 A.D.2d 746).
It is well settled that the police are not required to take affirmative steps to prevent a person who is in custody from making incriminating statements (see, People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286; People v Peahy, 191 A.D.2d 652).
We find that the defendant's sentences were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.