DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police were not required to re-administer Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) before he was last questioned. The defendant remained in continuous custody and voluntarily waived his rights (see People v. Saunders, 290 A.D.2d 461, 463). When a person in continuous police custody receives Miranda rights and voluntarily waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a "reasonable time" thereafter (see People v. Holland, 268 A.D.2d 536, 537; People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 889, cert denied 472 U.S. 1021).
Furthermore, the County Court correctly refused to charge the affirmative defense of duress (see People v. Hai Guang Zheng, 268 A.D.2d 443, 444).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.