Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 4074/88 that it was error to permit a police officer to testify to that portion of his pretrial statements which contained admissions of other crimes. Since the defendant's admissions regarding the other crimes were inextricably intertwined with his statements pertaining to the crimes of which he was subsequently indicted, introduction into evidence of the entire pretrial statement was proper (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 361; People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368; People v. Ivory, 162 A.D.2d 551; People v Mitchell, 40 A.D.2d 117).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 4074/88, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit.
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's contentions that in the event his conviction under Indictment No. 4074/88 is reversed, he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 4071/88. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.