Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Purple, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: It was error for the court to deny defendant's motion to suppress statements given in response to questioning by police after defendant had been taken into custody but before he was given his Miranda warnings. On this record, however, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and the testimony of both defendant and his witness was essentially the same as defendant's statements. Defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to inform him that he could controvert the constitutionality of a predicate conviction for driving while intoxicated is without merit (see, People v Knack, 72 N.Y.2d 825, affg 128 A.D.2d 307). The court need only advise defendant of his option to admit or deny the previous conviction or to remain mute (CPL 200.60). The court fulfilled that obligation. We have reviewed defendant's other argument and find it lacking in merit.