Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his oral and written confessions made to the police and a subsequent videotaped confession made to an Assistant District Attorney should have been suppressed. We disagree with the defendant and conclude that suppression of the confessions was properly denied because the evidence supports the hearing court's determination (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 759) that at the time the defendant made his initial admission to the detective, he was not in custody. Thus Miranda warnings were not required at that time (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). The subsequent confessions, however, were preceded by full Miranda warnings, and were therefore, admissible.
The defendant also argues that his conviction of burglary in the first degree must be reversed because there was no evidence that he had entered or remained unlawfully on the victim's premises. This argument has not been preserved for appellate review since it was not specifically raised in the trial court (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Bailey, 146 A.D.2d 788).
Finally, under the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.