Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statement, taken after he was placed in custody but before Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) were given, was made voluntarily and spontaneously and was not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent ( see People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294; People v Nevone, 258 AD2d 944; People v Harrison, 251 AD2d 681; People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly admitted into evidence a statement made by the complainant's then-10-year-old daughter shortly after she witnessed the subject crime and struggled with the defendant over the weapon used in the crime, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497; People v Donahue, 50 AD3d 820, 821; People v Rodriguez, 306 AD2d 686, 688).