Judgment affirmed.
The suppression court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the self-incriminatory statements which he made to the police. The disposition of defendant's motion hinged upon a resolution of the conflicting testimony offered by two detectives, on the one hand, and that of defendant, on the other. Crediting the detectives' testimony, as did the suppression court ( cf. People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759), we conclude that defendant, who was thoroughly familiar with the criminal justice system, uttered these statements after knowingly and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning and not in response to improper police activity ( see, People v Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 765; People v Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.