probation officer testified as to defendant’s admission to her concerning taking marihuana to the Rensselaer County Jail inmate. Thereafter defendant’s probation was revoked, and he was resentenced on the grand larceny in the third degree conviction to one to three years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends on appeal that his admissions to his probation officer in the absence of counsel concerning the April 15, 1981 promoting prison contraband charge were inadmissible against him at the probation revocation proceeding. It is highly questionable if the right to counsel applies in dealings with a probation officer. Indeed, it has been held that a probationer does not have to receive
Miranda warnings
(Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ) before questioning by his probation officer
(People v Ronald W., 24 NY2d 732 ), and that a probationer does not have the right to have an attorney present during questioning by his probation officer
(United States v Rea, 678 F2d 382 , 390; see, also,
Matter of Utsey v New York State Bd. of Parole, 89 AD2d 965 ). A probation officer’s primary goal is to rehabilitate probationers (Penal Law, § 65.00, subd
1; People v Ronald W., 24 NY2d 732 , 734-735,
supra), and a probationer is required by statute to “[r]eport to a probation officer as directed by the court or the probation officer” and to “[a]nswer all reasonable inquiries by the probation officer” (Penal Law, § 65.10, subd 3, pars [a], [c]). In this case, these statutory requirements were incorporated into the conditions of probation to which defendant agreed in return for the privilege of avoiding incarceration. If a probationer were entitled to the presence of counsel whenever he was being interviewed by his probation officer — i.e., if he were treated like a pretrial detainee being questioned by the police — this would unduly hamper the goals of the probation status and would tend to render the present system of probation supervision unworkable (see
People v Ronald W., 24 NY2d 732 , 734-735,
supra; United States v Rea, 678 F2d 382 ,390,
supra). Even if, however, we were to assume that the right to counsel to any extent applies to questioning by a probation officer, there would have been no violation of that right in this case because at the time of defendant’s interview with his probation officer the right had not attached on his behalf. In New York the right to counsel attaches under two distinct sets of circumstances. The first is where there has been an actual or requested entry of counsel about which the police know or should know
(People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167 ;
People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479 ). The second set of circumstances occurs upon the commencement of formal criminal proceedings
(People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ;
People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ). In the instant case, the right to counsel did not attach through entry of counsel in either the violation of probation proceeding or the April 15, 1981 promoting prison contraband action. The violation of probation proceeding was not even initiated until several days after defendant spoke to his probation officer, and there is no proof in the record that counsel had entered the April 15,1981 (or the Dec. 17, 1980) proceeding at the time defendant spoke to his probation officer. Moreover, during defendant’s interview with his probation officer, defendant neither asked to speak to counsel nor in any way attempted to invoke the right to counsel. At the time of defendant’s interview with his probation officer, the right to counsel also did not attach through commencement of the unrelated April 15 criminal proceeding, again because there is no evidence that as of the time of defendant’s interview with his probation officer defendant was represented by counsel in that unrelated proceeding
(People v Kazmarick, 52 NY2d 322 ;
People v Attonito, 29 NY2d 732 ; cf.
People v Smith, 54 NY2d 954 ;
People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225 ). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the violation of probation proceeding was related to the original grand larceny conviction out of which it arose and clearly is distinct and unrelated to the April 15 prosecution for promoting prison contraband; it