Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court correctly found that the victim's statement following the shooting was admissible as an excited utterance (see, People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513, 519; People v. Toombs, 98 A.D.2d 951). The fact that it was in response to questioning by the police does not, by itself, render it inadmissible (see, People v. Brown, supra, at 522). We find no reason to disturb the court's finding that defendant's statement given to the police while he was a patient in the intensive care unit at the hospital was voluntarily made after defendant had been given his Miranda warnings (see, People v Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 651; People v Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588; see generally, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761).
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.