Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The "rigidity" of the Miranda warnings does not extend "to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant * * * no talismatic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures" ( California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359). "The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably `conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda'" ( Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203). Here, the warnings given reasonably apprised the defendant of his rights ( see, Duckworth v. Eagan, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.