PEOPLE v. LANG

Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The record fails to support defendant's claim that her statements were the product of continuous police interrogation for a period of almost 12 hours. On the contrary, during this period of time, defendant was offered food and drink and there was a break of several hours between the making of written and videotaped statements ( compare, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35). Nor was there anything defective about the Miranda warnings and waivers ( see, People v. Dunwoody, 89 A.D.2d 569, 570). We see no reason to reduce defendant's bargained-for sentence.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.