Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. Defendant, who made no application to reopen the Huntley hearing, bases his current arguments entirely upon evidence developed at trial. In these circumstances, appellate review of these arguments is foreclosed ( People v. Nieves, 205 A.D.2d 173, 184, affd 88 N.Y.2d 618). In any event, even if we were to find defendant's first statement inadmissible due to lack of Miranda warnings, we would find that the first statement was merely cumulative of a second statement, which we would find admissible in view of the sufficiently clean break between the two statements ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 231 A.D.2d 477, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1099).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.