Opinion
November 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved, inter alia, for a Huntley hearing to suppress certain taped telephone conversations he had had with one of his accomplices, who was working in cooperation with investigators, on the ground, inter alia, that any incriminatory statements he had made to the accomplice during the conversations were the "involuntary product of coercion" on the part of the accomplice. The People responded that a Huntley hearing was unnecessary, because the statements were made "voluntarily while the defendant was not in custody" and were made "in furtherance of the criminal conduct charged". Subsequently, the court summarily denied the defendant's motion.
After considering the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, we conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of the statements affected the verdict (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; see also, People v McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634). Therefore, "there is no need to reach the merits of the suppression issue, because the admission of the [statements], if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.2d 843, 844). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.