Opinion
March 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his three incriminatory statements. The record supports the finding that he understood the Miranda warnings which were given prior to each statement, and that he voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights (see, Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, reh denied 444 U.S. 887; People v. Dorsey, 118 A.D.2d 653). In addition, the defendant's statements were not the product of an illegal custodial interrogation since he voluntarily accompanied detectives to the precinct and answered questions concerning the school yard shooting. Under these circumstances, a reasonable man in his position, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he was free to leave (see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907).
We also find the credible evidence revealed that the police had not intentionally or inadvertently isolated the defendant from contact with his family (see, People v. Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508; People v. Evans, 70 A.D.2d 886). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.