Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that his station-house statement, given after he waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), was tainted by the illegality of a prior inadmissible statement. The defendant was not subjected to such continuous interrogation as to render the Miranda warnings ineffective (see, People v Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112; People v Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364). Furthermore, the interval of time between the making of the two statements, in conjunction with the intervening circumstances, provided sufficient attenuation to remove any taint which could be attributable to the inadmissible statement (see, People v Ates, 157 A.D.2d 786, 787; People v Chapple, supra). Additionally, the defendant did not testify at the suppression hearing and no evidence was adduced in support of his contention that the station-house statement was involuntarily given on constraint of the prior inadmissible statement, under the so-called "cat out of the bag theory" (see, People v Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774; People v Shipman, 156 A.D.2d 494; People v McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634; People v Chapple, supra, at 115). Accordingly, the court properly denied suppression of that statement. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.