Opinion
October 3, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly found that his incriminatory statements to the arresting officer at a Brooklyn station house a few hours after his arrest, which he made without receiving Miranda warnings, were spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent. The arresting officer's inquiry to the defendant, to the effect of "yeah, what's up?" several minutes after the defendant had told the officer that he wanted to tell him something, was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291; People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476; People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Dove, 176 A.D.2d 266).
Moreover, the statements made by a Nassau County police officer to the defendant during a conversation the defendant had initiated while he was being transported to a Nassau County station house subsequent to his arraignment in Kings County, were merely responsive to the defendant's questions and comments concerning why he was being taken to Nassau County and the nature of the charges facing him in Nassau County. Accordingly, the court's refusal to suppress the defendant's statements, made in response to the officer's comments, was similarly proper (see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, supra; People v. Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711, 714; see, e.g., People v Hampton, 129 A.D.2d 736, 737).
We have examined the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.