Defendant's self-incriminating statements were not the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent, but were spontaneous, and therefore properly admitted (see, People v Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). Whether defendant actually made the statements was an issue pertinent at trial, not the Huntley hearing (People v. Simmons, 170 A.D.2d 15, 21, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1130). Defendant's claim that he did not have effective assistance of counsel is unsupported by a record which, because no appropriate postjudgment motion was made, leaves unanswered what was in defense counsel's mind when he chose not to cross-examine the officers at the Huntley hearing on the co-defendant's statements (see, People v. Jones, 55 N.Y.2d 771, 773).
Finally, because defendant never moved to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, his claim that his plea should not have been accepted is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662), and we decline to review in the interest of justice, given a sentence that imposes the minimum permissible term for a second felony offender.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.