Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The breathalyzer test was properly admitted into evidence (see People v. Farrell, 58 N.Y.2d 637), and defendant's guilt for driving while he had .10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood as shown by chemical analysis of his breath (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192, subds 2, 5) was established by legally sufficient evidence. The unresponsive answer to a single question propounded to the defendant by the officer did not constitute a process of interrogation that falls within the ambit of Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436; see People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29).