PEOPLE v. PULLIAM

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the right to counsel had not indelibly attached at the time the defendant made the inculpatory statements and videotape in question (see, People v. Lennon, 243 A.D.2d 495). The defendant made the inculpatory statements only after he had declined to accept the attorney allegedly provided by his mother and after he knowingly, intellegently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Martino, 259 A.D.2d 561; People v. Lennon, supra; see also, People v. Baptiste, 276 A.D.2d 494).