Judgment affirmed.
The record overwhelmingly supports the hearing court's determination that defendant's statement was spontaneously uttered after the proper administration of Miranda warnings and thus was not the result of custodial interrogation. The mere fact that defendant's statement was made immediately after a remark by the arresting officer does not foreclose this finding of spontaneity (see, People v Bryant, 87 A.D.2d 873, affd 59 N.Y.2d 786; People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286), for the officer's comment was declarative in nature and could not reasonably be construed as one likely to elicit an incriminating response from defendant (see, People v Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795; People v Joyner, 109 A.D.2d 753, lv. denied 65 N.Y.2d 696). The record also amply supports the finding of the hearing court that defendant's statement was voluntarily made, despite his claim of intoxication (see, People v Adams, 26 N.Y.2d 129, cert. denied 399 U.S. 931). We further note that, in light of defendant's criminal background and the serious nature of the instant offense, the sentence imposed was well within the bounds of the sentencing court's sound discretion (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.