Judgment affirmed.
The question posed by the arresting officer while he was in the process of apprehending the defendant and before the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights did not constitute custodial interrogation, but was, rather, an inquiry designed to clarify a volatile situation confronting the officer. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the defendant's statement made in response thereto (see, People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; People v. Johnson, 86 A.D.2d 165, affd 59 N.Y.2d 1014; People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018). Moreover, we find that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motions to proceed pro se, as the applications were either equivocal and/or untimely (see, People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Nelson, 72 A.D.2d 64). Moreover, assigned counsel provided the defendant with effective assistance (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.