PEOPLE v. SCHLEYER (1997)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, defendant argues that statements he made to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed.   We disagree.   The arrest of defendant in his home pursuant to a bench warrant issued by Irondequoit Town Court was lawful.   The fact that the police questioned defendant concerning an unrelated burglary and murder does not render the arrest unlawful (see, People v. Calcaterra, 127 A.D.2d 778, 778-779, 512 N.Y.S.2d 173, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 644, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 512 N.E.2d 562;  People v. Heller, 99 A.D.2d 787, 787-788, 471 N.Y.S.2d 883).

 Defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings before two of his friends, who were working as agents for the police, met with defendant in his home to attempt to elicit incriminating responses from him.   Defendant was not in custody nor was the police involvement sufficient “to create a coercive, custodial environment with the reasonable potential of infringing defendant's privilege against compulsory incrimination” (People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 287, 491 N.Y.S.2d 283, 480 N.E.2d 1065;  see also, People v. Jones 47 N.Y.2d 528, 533-534, 419 N.Y.S.2d 447, 393 N.E.2d 443).   The failure of the police to inform defendant of the subject of the interrogation before obtaining the waiver of his Miranda rights at the public safety building does not render that waiver involuntary (see, People v. Richer, 168 A.D.2d 910, 565 N.Y.S.2d 644, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 957, 573 N.Y.S.2d 652, 578 N.E.2d 450;  People v. Hall, 152 A.D.2d 948, 949, 543 N.Y.S.2d 820, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 847, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 546 N.E.2d 195).

 By failing to request a charge pursuant to CPL 60.50, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present argument that the court should have charged the jury pursuant to that section (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).  That argument is without merit in any event because there is no question in this case that a crime was committed (see, People v. Booden, 69 N.Y.2d 185, 187, 513 N.Y.S.2d 87, 505 N.E.2d 598;  People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 570-571, 457 N.Y.S.2d 451, 443 N.E.2d 925, rearg. denied 58 N.Y.2d 824, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 445 N.E.2d 657).   Defendant did not object to the admission of testimony concerning aborted plans to commit two earlier burglaries on the date in question, thereby failing to preserve for our review his present argument that the testimony was erroneously admitted (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).  We decline to exercise our power to review that issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).  Finally, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM.