Defendant's motion to suppress her statements was properly denied. The record supports the court's finding that defendant was not in custody at the time she made the statement that she challenges on the ground of lack of Miranda warnings. At the time of the statement at issue, a reasonable person similarly situated to defendant, and innocent of any crime, would not have believed that her freedom was significantly restricted ( see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). Throughout their interaction with defendant leading up to this statement, the police never treated defendant as a suspect in her husband's death, or gave her any reason to believe she was in custody. Defendant was generally left unsupervised in an interview room and was free to move around the police station. Under the circumstances, the fact that a detective confronted defendant with a piece of incriminating evidence was not enough to transform the interview into a custodial interrogation ( see Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213, 219-220).
In any event, the statements defendant subsequently made after Miranda warnings, and her videotaped statement in particular, were sufficiently attenuated so as to be admissible regardless of the admissibility of her pre- Miranda statement ( see People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115), and any error in receiving that statement would be harmless ( see People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51, 66).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.