The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Although defendant was in custody and had not yet received
Miranda warnings, his inquiry about why he was being charged with a felony was "immediately met by a brief and relatively innocuous answer by the police officer," not constituting interrogation or its functional equivalent (
People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480 [1982];
compare People v Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711 [1981] [detailed recital of evidence held equivalent to interrogation]). Under these circumstances, defendant's inculpatory statement was self-generated and spontaneous.