Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress statements to the police because they were preceded by Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and defendant was not subject to continuous interrogation to render the warnings ineffective (see, People v. Shipman, 156 A.D.2d 494; People v. Scruggs, 138 A.D.2d 646; People v. Glover, 58 A.D.2d 814, 815; cf., People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112). There was a definite and pronounced break in the interrogation of the defendant (see, People v. McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634, 637, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 959; People v. Miller, 137 A.D.2d 626). Defendant did not make any incriminating statements during the unwarned interrogation and was questioned by a different police officer after the break in the interrogation. Moreover, during the entire interrogation defendant was never threatened, deceived or abused in any way. Defendant's claims regarding the court's charge lack merit.