Order affirmed insofar as appealed from.
Since the defendant was never explicitly advised, after being arrested, that he had the right to consult with counsel prior to and during the course of police questioning, the hearing court properly granted his motion to suppress oral statements made to the police (see, People v. Hutchinson, 59 N.Y.2d 923; People v Graham, 78 A.D.2d 831, affd 55 N.Y.2d 144; People v. Dunnett, 44 A.D.2d 733). The right to have an attorney present during interrogation is a critical component of the constitutionally mandated preinterrogation warnings. Although the defendant may have been criminally sophisticated and familiar with his rights, "[n]o amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead" (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 471-472). While we acknowledge that there need not be a "talismanic incantation" of preinterrogation admonitions in order to pass constitutional muster (see, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 363), the substance of the requisite warnings must nevertheless be clearly conveyed for a waiver to be deemed effective. Because the defendant was never informed that his right to counsel attached prior to interrogation, the warnings given by the police were constitutionally deficient, and the order is, accordingly, affirmed insofar as appealed from. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper JJ., concur.