There is no merit to the defendant's argument that he was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant while at home, moved freely about the apartment and, was asked politely to go to the precinct house (see, People v White, 164 A.D.2d 413, 417, affd 79 N.Y.2d 900). Thereafter, he was at no point deprived of food, sleep or outside contacts (see, People v Acquaah, 167 A.D.2d 313, 315, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 961). In short, the hearing court properly found that there was no police "conduct that would indicate any hint of official force that is normally associated with custody" (People v Morales, 129 A.D.2d 440, 443). Defendant's contention that the trial court failed to conduct a "probing and tactful inquiry" into a juror's request to be excused in mid-deliberation because of duress and intimidation in the jury room is unpreserved for review as a matter of law. Further, no protest was made during the inquiry that was had of the juror or during the charge to the entire jury that followed (see, People v Barcliff, 178 A.D.2d 285, 286, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 997). Given the presumption that the jury followed the court's curative instructions, we decline to review in the interest of justice.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.