Summary
In Schnugg, both the prosecution and the defense counsel asked questions about the unnoticed statement and the defense counsel moved for suppression, rather than preclusion.
Summary of this case from People v. SalinaOpinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the defendant's statement to the arresting officer that he was alone in the car at the time of the accident. The defendant argues that this statement should have been suppressed since the People did not provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. However, this information was elicited by both the prosecutor and defense counsel during the Huntley hearing. This testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing was sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the People's intent to use the statement ( see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 710.30, at 221; see also, People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, cert denied 493 U.S. 859; People v. Reid, 215 A.D.2d 507). Accordingly, the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the statement at that time ( see, People v. Cooper, 78 N.Y.2d 476, 508; People v. Figueras, 199 A.D.2d 409, 410).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Santucci, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.