Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly refused to suppress defendant's oral statements, rejecting his contention that they were the product of custodial interrogation. Defendant was questioned in his home for about one hour, his freedom was unrestricted, and the court was entitled to believe the police officer's testimony that defendant never asked him to leave (see, e.g., Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213; see generally, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 588, mot to amend remittitur denied 26 N.Y.2d 845, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v Baird, 155 A.D.2d 918, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 963).
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be lacking in merit.