PEOPLE v. BOCCIO

Judgments affirmed.

Criminal Term did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the self-incriminatory statements which he made to the police. 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. Lopez, 95 A.D.2d 241; People v. Crosby, 91 A.D.2d 20, mot for lv to app den 59 N.Y.2d 765; People v. Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269).

Moreover, defendant's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that his parents did not possess the requisite authority to consent to a warrantless search of his bedroom, which was located within their home, is without merit (see People v Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Moorer, 58 A.D.2d 878).

Finally, under the circumstances herein, including defendant's second felony offender status, the sentences imposed were not improper or an abuse of discretion (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). O'Connor, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.