Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that, following the reading of his Miranda warnings at the scene of his arrest, he had remained silent as to the last question. It is true that no waiver of Miranda rights may be presumed from a defendant's silence alone (see, People v. Nunez, 176 A.D.2d 70, 71, affd 80 N.Y.2d 858, citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). Here, however, upon arrival at the precinct, detectives issued a fresh set of Miranda warnings and the defendant expressly waived his right to remain silent and not be questioned. Accordingly, the detectives properly questioned the defendant about the crime (cf., People v. Breland, 145 A.D.2d 639). Further, all of the statements sought to be suppressed were made subsequent to the defendant's explicit acknowledgement of understanding and waiver of his Miranda rights. Thus, the motion for suppression was properly denied (see, People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.
S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.