Judgment affirmed.
Although there was some evidence that defendant had been drinking prior to his arrest, it was clear that he did not lack an awareness or an understanding of his spontaneous admission. Thus, the denial of defendant's motion to suppress this admission was proper ( People v Adams, 26 N.Y.2d 129, cert. den. 399 U.S. 931; People v Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, cert. den. 389 U.S. 874). We have viewed the videotape of defendant's subsequent interrogation by an Assistant District Attorney and find it demonstrated that defendant understood his Miranda rights and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights (see People v Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied suppression of defendant's videotaped confession (see People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.