Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements the defendant made at the scene of the crime. The police officer's pre- Miranda inquiries respecting the defendant's address and whether he had keys to secure the apartment where the crime occurred were permissible threshold crime scene inquiries rather than questions intended to elicit an inculpatory statement from the defendant (see, People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; People v. Pileggi, 141 A.D.2d 866). Therefore, the police officer was not obligated to provide the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436; see, People v. Huffman, supra) and the statements were properly admissible.
When a defendant's conviction is based, as in this case, entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the facts from which the inference of his guilt is drawn must be inconsistent with his innocence and must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt (see, People v. Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's failure to charge criminal facilitation was not error since it is not a lesser included offense of any of the offenses charged in the indictment (see, People v. Luther, 61 N.Y.2d 724; People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Fischer, 94 A.D.2d 706). We also find no improvident exercise of discretion in the prosecutor's failure to confer full transactional immunity to one of the witnesses in this case (see, People v. Owens, 63 N.Y.2d 824; People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241).
The defendant's allegation that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit. The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.