Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to suppress inculpatory statements he made while in police custody and that his sentence is unduly harsh or severe.
The inculpatory statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel were spontaneous and not the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479-480, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 775; People v Strickland, 151 A.D.2d 978, 979, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 819; cf., People v Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648). The detectives' questions following defendant's invocation of the right to counsel related only to pedigree information, e.g., height and weight, necessary to complete the administrative processing of defendant's arrest (see, People v Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 173); the questions were not "subtly designed to elicit a statement" from defendant (People v Hylton, 198 A.D.2d 301, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 925; see, People v Self, 213 A.D.2d 998). Contrary to defendant's contention, the police are under no affirmative obligation to prevent a talkative person in custody from making incriminating statements (People v Rivers, supra, at 479).
Finally, defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.