Opinion
June 29, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There was adequate evidence in the record to support the hearing court's conclusions that the statements given by the defendant at the police station were preceded by a proper recitation to him of his rights, and an intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights, including the right to counsel (see, People v Reichbach, 131 A.D.2d 515; People v Smith, 118 A.D.2d 605, 606; cf., People v Hartley, 103 A.D.2d 935, affd 65 N.Y.2d 703). The record similarly contained sufficient evidence to support findings that the defendant was not in custody when he made his earlier statements (see People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, mot to amend remittitur denied 26 N.Y.2d 845, 883, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v Rodney P., 21 N.Y.2d 1) and, in any event, they were not elicited by the police (People v Kaye, 25 N.Y.2d 139; cf., Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 U.S. 291).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.