Opinion
February 10, 1999
Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.
PRESENT: DENMAN, P. J., GREEN, PINE, HAYES AND CALLAHAN, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements that he made while in custody before the police gave him his Miranda warnings. We disagree. The record establishes that the police officer's response to defendant's inquiry did not constitute interrogation or its functional equivalent and that defendant's subsequent statements were spontaneous ( see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479-480, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 775; People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294-295; People v. Vasquez, 235 A.D.2d 322, affd 90 N.Y.2d 972). The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. Defendant failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises ( cf., People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that his guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered ( see generally, People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353-355, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067). Finally, defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.