Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his inculpatory statements were involuntarily made. However, the record shows that the defendant's statements, which were made after Miranda warnings were properly administered, were spontaneously uttered without custodial interrogation. Merely because the defendant's statements were made immediately after a remark by the arresting officer does not foreclose the finding of spontaneity where the officer's comment was declarative in nature and could not reasonably be construed as likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant (see, People v. Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795; People v. Bonacorsa, 115 A.D.2d 546).
The defendant further contends that the lineup was unduly suggestive because he was the only one who wore his hair in dreadlocks. The law does not require that lineup fillers have the identical physical characteristics as the defendant. The fillers must merely possess physical characteristics reasonably similar to the accused (see, People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692). The lineup was not suggestive because the police took reasonable steps to conceal the defendant's distinctive hairstyle by requiring the lineup participants to wear caps to cover their hair.
The defendant's other claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006; People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Rogers, 135 A.D.2d 588; People v. Allyn, 92 A.D.2d 692). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.