Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant's initial incriminating statement to the arresting officer, to the effect that setting the fire was not his idea, and that he was only helping his friend, was made spontaneously, without any provocation or interrogation by the police. His later explanation as to why the fire was set, was also made without provocation or questioning by the police. The conduct of the police could not reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant (see, People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 295). Therefore, both of these statements were properly deemed admissible. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.