Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the record at the combined Huntley-Mapp hearing supports the court's determination that (1) the defendant's statement to the arresting officer prior to having been advised of his Miranda rights was spontaneous and not the result of custodial interrogation and (2) the defendant's subsequent statements to a detective were voluntarily given after he was advised of his Miranda rights (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479).
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146; People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.