Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 13, 1968, convicting him of murder in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a life sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and new trial ordered. In our opinion it was prejudicial error to receive in evidence defendant's admissions to Detective Hayes and that part of his statement to Patrolman Draghi which was made after defendant's attorney had advised him not to answer and had instructed the police not to question him ( People v. Vella, 21 N.Y.2d 249; People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 329; People v. Baker, 23 N.Y.2d 307, 318-319; People v. Miles, 23 N.Y.2d 527, 542; People v. Paulin, 25 N.Y.2d 445). People v. McKie ( 25 N.Y.2d 19) and People v. Kaye ( 25 N.Y.2d 139) are distinguishable on their facts; and the case at bar comes squarely within the holding in Paulin ( supra). We believe the trial court committed further prejudicial error when it refused defendant's request to charge subdivision 3 of section 1052 of the former Penal Law ( People v. Drislane, 8 N.Y.2d 67; People v. Heineman, 211 N.Y. 475). On the record in this case we also believe it was improper for the prosecutor to impeach the testimony of an important defense witness, Mrs. Bahit, as a recent fabrication, since it appears that the prosecutor and a police officer who sat with him at the counsel table knew or had been apprised, long before the trial, that this witness had made a similar statement to the police and others shortly after the crime was committed. Finally, we do not believe that the indictment should be dismissed because of the claimed deprival of defendant's right to appear before the Grand Jury that indicted him, since (a) that right does not accrue until the accused serves a formal request to appear and waives immunity and (b) this defendant did not comply with those requirements (see Code Crim. Pro., § 250; People ex rel. Mleczko v. McCloskey, 33 Misc.2d 175, affd. 16 A.D.2d 878; People v. Powell, 31 Misc.2d 833; People v. Galarotti, 46 Misc.2d 871; People v. Grossman, 35 Misc.2d 488). Nevertheless, we wish to note our disapproval of the prosecutor's conduct in this connection. When defendant was arraigned in the Nassau County District Court, on the same day the homicide occurred (a Friday), the prosecutor requested and was granted an adjournment to the following Wednesday. At that same arraignment, defense counsel notified the prosecutor, in open court, that he intended to request an appearance by his client before the Grand Jury. Despite that notification, the prosecutor hastily submitted the case to the Grand Jury on the following Monday (only three days after the crime and preliminary arraignment), without notifying defense counsel that it was being presented. Such tactics do not comport with traditional concepts of fair play and should not be used by a prosecutor. Christ, P.J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.