DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress statements which he made to the police at the scene of his arrest, as those statements were made in response to police interrogation designed to elicit inculpatory statements from the defendant prior to the reading of Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445 ; People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112 ; People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 34 ; People v. Soto, 183 A.D.2d 926. 927). However, any error in admitting the statements made to the police at the scene of the arrest was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 ; People v. Molina, 248 A.D.2d 489, 490 ).
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress statements which he subsequently made to the police at the station house. These later statements, which were made after the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda Rights (see,People v. Santiago, 72 N.Y.2d 836 ; People v. Mejia, 262 A.D.2d 585 [2d Dept., June 21, 1999]; People v. Rosario, 245 A.D.2d 470 ;People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469 ), were admissible because the defendant was not subject to such continuous interrogation that the Miranda warnings given to him were insufficient to protect his rights (see, People v. Chapple, supra, at 115; People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 484 ; People v. Hicks, 226 A.D.2d 938 ).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
FRIEDMANN, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.