OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*767 At the time of defendant’s custodial interrogation, the interrogating officer had actual knowledge that defendant had been arrested and processed in the officer’s own precinct 6V2 months earlier on felony charges. Because the prior arrest was relatively recent and concerned felony charges, the officer was obligated to make further inquiry (People v Bertolo, 65 NY2d 111, 119; People v Smith, 54 NY2d 954). The determination of the suppression court, affirmed by the Appellate Division and supported by this record was that the officer’s inquiry, "Do you have an attorney”, to which the defendant answered, "no”, was sufficient to satisfy the People’s obligation. Under the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the officer to rely on defendant’s denial of counsel, and no additional inquiry was required (People v Lucarano, 61 NY2d 138).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.