Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's motion to suppress certain oral and written statements made to the police was properly denied. The statements made by defendant in the police vehicle resulted from a threshold police inquiry "designed to clarify the nature of the situation" rather than to obtain a confession (People v Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 34). Thus, those statements were not the product of custodial interrogation to which Miranda warnings are applicable (see, People v Huffman, supra; People v Stackhouse, 160 A.D.2d 822, 823, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 865; People v Sims, 150 A.D.2d 402, 403, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 747; People v Smith, 150 A.D.2d 738, 739, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 819; People v Esposito, 138 A.D.2d 733; People v Brewer, 136 A.D.2d 831, 832, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 966). The record supports the suppression court's determination that, at the police station, defendant was fully apprised of his Miranda rights and that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights and gave oral and written statements (see, People v Brainard, 122 A.D.2d 299, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 913).
The admission into evidence of a photograph of the murder victim was proper (see, People v Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796; People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, cert denied 416 U.S. 905). Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive.