THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,V RAMEL BELL-SCOTT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITEOF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (JohnJ. Brunetti, A.J.), dated September 20, 2016. The order granted thatpart of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress oral statementsmade to Syracuse Police detectives.It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from isunanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motionseeking to suppress defendant’s statements is denied, and the matteris remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedingson the indictment.Memorandum: The People appeal from an order granting that partof defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress oral statements thathe made to Syracuse Police detectives. We agree with the People thatSupreme Court erred in suppressing those statements, and we thereforereverse the order, deny that part of the omnibus motion seekingsuppression of defendant’s statements and remit the matter to SupremeCourt for further proceedings on the indictment.Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the evidence at the Huntleyhearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made thestatements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required (see generallyMiranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 467 [1966]). “In determining whether adefendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, ‘[t]he test is not whatthe defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocentof any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in thedefendant’s position’ ” (People v Kelley, 91 AD3d 1318, 1318 [4th Dept2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012], quoting People v Yukl, 25 NY2d585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). We rejectdefendant’s contention that the People failed to meet their “burden ofshowing that [he] voluntarily went to the [detectives' office] wherehe allegedly made the inculpatory statements” (People v Gonzalez, 80NY2d 883, 884 [1992]). Indeed, the People “properly demonstrated byunchallenged hearsay testimony” that defendant voluntarily accompaniedthe officers to the detectives’ office for questioning and, inasmuchas defendant did not dispute that fact in either his motion papers orhis arguments on the motion, that testimony was sufficient to sustainthe People’s burden (People v Rodriguez, 188 AD2d 564, 564 [2d Dept1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 892 [1993]; see generally People v Norman,304 AD2d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 623 [2003]). Wefurther conclude that defendant was not in custody when he made thestatements because he was informed that he was not under arrest andthat he would be going home that day, he was not handcuffed, he waspermitted to leave the interview room several times, he never asked toleave the office nor was he told that he could not leave, and he wasnot arrested that day (see People v Weakfall, 108 AD3d 1115, 1115-1116[4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1078 [2013]; see also People vWilbert, 192 AD2d 1109, 1109-1110 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 81 NY2d1082 [1993]; People v Anderson, 145 AD2d 939, 939-940 [4th Dept 1988],lv denied 73 NY2d 974 [1989]).The People’s further contention that the court erred in denyingtheir request to reopen the hearing is academic in light of ourdetermination.Entered: June 8, 2018 Mark W. BennettClerk of the Court
