PEOPLE v. VELASQUEZ

Defendant's suppression motions were properly denied. Following defendant's arrest, police inquiries regarding ownership of the van in question and the whereabouts of its keys were clearly intended to clarify the situation and did not constitute police interrogation requiring Miranda warnings ( People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 33; People v. Bailey, 172 A.D.2d 163, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 920). The inventory search of the van following defendant's lawful arrest was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure and did not require a warrant ( see, People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715; People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 388-389).

On the existing record, we find that trial counsel's representation was meaningful ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Defendant's suggestion that the court possessed discretion to sentence defendant as a first felony offender is contrary to law.

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.