Opinion
April 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).
Defendant's challenge on appeal to the hearing court's implied denial of his motion to suppress three of his statements, as violative of Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436), is meritless. Defendant's statement "the money is mine" was never introduced into evidence at trial and is, therefore, academic for purposes of this appeal. When a police officer asked defendant what had happened to the money, only moments after defendant had grabbed it from complainant, and which was not in his hands when he was handcuffed after a scuffle during which defendant resisted arrest, he responded "I dropped it." This statement was not the product of interrogation. The question which defendant answered had been made in close proximity to an apparent crime and was intended only to clarify what had happened (see, People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29).
Finally, after defendant had received a Miranda warning, he was observed, in a holding cell, secreting something between his bench and the wall. When a police office extracted cash from the location, he merely looked at defendant, who blurted out, "you got me." This was a spontaneous declaration. As we noted in People v. Gamble ( 129 A.D.2d 470), the officer was not required to voluntarily refuse to listen to defendant. We note in passing that defendant's contention that, by looking at defendant, the officer conducted "the functional equivalent of interrogation", is devoid of merit. (Compare, People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.