Opinion
August 25, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant gave six separate statements to law enforcement authorities. The hearing court determined that the first and second statements were made before the defendant was in custody, and the third, fifth, and sixth statements were voluntarily made after the defendant was properly advised of her Miranda rights. Accordingly, the hearing court denied the motion to suppress those statements. However, the hearing court suppressed the fourth statement on the ground that the police failed to properly readminister Miranda rights before questioning the defendant.
The defendant claims that the hearing court should have suppressed the second statement. The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837), and the standard to be applied is whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have believed that she was in police custody (People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). Weighing the relevant factors present in the instant case (see, People v. Mosley, 196 A.D.2d 893; People v Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356), the hearing court properly determined that the defendant was not in custody when she made the second statement.
We similarly reject the defendant's contention that the fifth and sixth statements should have been suppressed. The break between the fourth statement and the subsequent statements was sufficient to remove any taint which may have arisen from the fourth statement (see, People v. Abreu, 184 A.D.2d 707; People v Velasquez, 171 A.D.2d 825; People v. Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706). Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing that the fifth and sixth statements were made voluntarily beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Tankleff; 199 A.D.2d 550, 551; People v. Abreu, supra).
The defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see also, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973).
The defendant's sentence was 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.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.