Opinion
February 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The "rigidity" of the Miranda warnings does not extend "to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant * * * no talismatic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures" ( California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359). "The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably `conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda'" ( Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203). Here, the warnings given reasonably apprised the defendant of his rights ( see, Duckworth v. Eagan, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.