Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The alleged inadequacy of the People's notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 did not require the suppression of the defendant's statements, as the notice adequately apprised the defendant of the sum and substance of the statements to be offered at trial (see, People v Cooper, 78 N.Y.2d 476, 484, citing People v Bennett, 56 N.Y.2d 837, 839; People v Grigas, 185 A.D.2d 245) and the defendant had a full opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the statements at the Huntley hearing (see, People v Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392). Moreover, the defendant did not challenge the voluntariness of the statements or articulate any specific manner in which the lack of notice was prejudicial to the defense (see, People v Miller, 154 A.D.2d 717, 718).
We further find that the challenged statement made by the defendant to the detective after giving an oral confession, that "he wasn't going to write anything down because he wasn't going to convict himself", was properly admitted into evidence as an acknowledgment by the defendant of his guilt (see, People v Williams, 154 A.D.2d 724, 725; People v Montgomery, 101 A.D.2d 893, 894).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.