On March 10 and 13, 2020, this Court conducted a Huntley hearing. Retired Detective Laverda Pugliese and Detective Matthew McClusky testified for the People. The defendant did not present any evidence. The Court heard oral argument from the parties. The defendant's motion is denied. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.^[FN1]

Retired Detective Laverda Pugliese testified that on April 17, 2019, she was employed by the New York Police Department and assigned to the 88th Precinct Detective Squad. On that day at approximately 1:00 p.m., Jamar Cook was arrested by fellow detectives and brought to the 88th Precinct in connection with a shooting.^[FN2] As Pugliese processed the defendant's arrest, the [*2]defendant, from his holding cell near her desk in the squad room, chatted with her about myriad personal issues.^[FN3] Pugliese and the defendant, however, did not discuss the shooting. While Pugliese could not specifically recall whether she offered the defendant food or drink or afforded him an opportunity to use the bathroom, she explained that it was her practice to do so in every case. Pugliese testified that her conversation with the defendant was friendly and did not include any mention of the shooting.

At approximately 4:40 p.m., Pugliese began a recorded interview of the defendant.^[FN4] Detective Matthew McClusky, also of the 88th Precinct Detective Squad, was assigned to observe and record that interview.^[FN5] Pugliese and the defendant, who was not handcuffed, entered the interview room, where the equipment was already recording.^[FN6] The defendant sat at a small table across from Pugliese. Pugliese told the defendant, in substance, that she was going to provide him with Miranda warnings in order to discuss a shooting. She then provided those warnings verbally. The defendant responded that he understood each of the Miranda warnings. When Pugliese asked the ultimate question — whether the defendant was willing to speak with her — he replied, in substance, that he was happy to continue their earlier conversation about his family. Pugliese clarified that she wished to speak with him about a shooting and asked if the defendant was willing to speak to her about that. The defendant replied, in substance, I have no problem, you can ask me anything, I have no problem talking to you. The defendant then began to talk, continuing in the same vein as earlier, and dominating much of the 45 minute conversation with assorted personal and familial issues. The defendant frequently interrupted Pugliese and occasionally raised his voice. Pugliese, however, remained calm and pleasant throughout.^[FN7] With respect to the shooting, despite Pugliese's sustained efforts to re-direct the conversation to that topic, the defendant repeatedly denied his involvement in the shooting, changing the subject at every turn. At no time did Pugliese threaten the defendant or promise him anything in exchange for his statement.^[FN8]

The Court credits the testimony of retired Detective Laverda Pugliese and Detective Matthew McClusky.

The defendant moves to suppress the video recorded statement that he made to Detective [*3]Pugliese on April 17, 2019 at the 88th Precinct. The People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's statement was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made. See People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 71 (1965).

The uncontradicted hearing testimony, together with the recorded statement, establishes that Detective Pugliese properly advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); People v. Anderson, 146 AD2d 638 (2d Dept. 1989), and that the defendant voluntarily waived those rights, see generally People v. Vidal, 44 AD3d 802 (2d Dept. 2007); People v. Rivas, 175 AD2d 186 (2d Dept. 1991). Additionally, the uncontradicted hearing testimony, together with the recorded statement, establishes that Detective Pugliese treated the defendant with respect, and did not coerce, threaten, or promise him anything in exchange for his statement. See generally People v. Castellanos, 65 AD3d 555 (2d Dept. 2009); People v. Rufino, 293 AD2d 498 (2d Dept. 2002).

Despite the foregoing, the defendant contends that his statement was involuntary because of the earlier un-Mirandized conversation that he had had with Detective Pugliese about his personal and familial issues unrelated to the shooting. Although it is a fundamental principle of law that an individual in police custody may not be subject to interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings, see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), and it is also a fundamental principle that interrogation includes not only "express questioning," but "any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response," Id. at 301, here, quite simply, there was no pre-Miranda interrogation — express or otherwise. Indeed, the pre-Miranda interaction between Pugliese and the defendant involved issues wholly unrelated to the shooting. While a friendly conversation could certainly grease the wheels on the road to an eventual confession, that was not the case here. Rather, Pugliese's kindness towards the defendant — an individual with whom she had had some prior familiarity — was just that, and not a veiled attempt to elicit an incriminating response from him. Moreover, despite her best efforts to steer the conversation to the shooting, the defendant repeatedly rebuffed her, instead returning over and over again to his personal issues. To be sure, the defendant remained unwavering in his declarations of innocence. See generally People v. Davis, 161 AD3d 1000 (2d Dept. 2018); People v. Slattery, 147 AD3d 788 (2d Dept. 2017); compare People v. Dorvil, 175 AD3d 708 (2d Dept. 2019); People v. Crawford, 163 AD3d 986 (2d Dept. 2018).

Finally, and contrary to the defendant's contention, the People were not required to call as a witness every police officer who came into contact with him prior to the statement. Indeed, the defendant failed to establish that any other officer possessed information with respect to the voluntariness of that post-Miranda recorded statement in which he maintained his innocence. See generally People v. Edwards, 95 NY2d 486 (2000); People v. Parris, 83 NY2d 342 (1994); People v. Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973 (1985); see also People v. Giron, 181 AD3d 710 (2d Dept. 2020); People v. Cuevas, 172 AD3d 567 (1st Dept. 2019); People v. Crawford, 61 AD3d 773 (2d Dept. 2009); People v. Hucks, 175 AD2d 213 (2d Dept. 1991). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress his statement to Detective Pugliese is denied.

The defendant's motion is denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.