Opinion
October 22, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the post-arrest statement he gave to detectives at the precinct should have been suppressed. Giving the findings of the hearing court the great weight to which they are entitled (People v James, 146 A.D.2d 712, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1016), we reject defendant's assertions that the police promised him that he would be allowed to leave the country, and deprived him of food, drink, and sleep. Nor did the police ruse of telling defendant that his accomplice had accused him of organizing the robbery create a substantial risk of false incrimination (supra; CPL 60.45 [b] [i]).
Defendant's pro se claim on appeal that the prosecutor failed to turn over Rosario material, consisting of a detective's notes of an interview with the accomplice, is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v Saunders, 160 A.D.2d 392, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 796). At trial, counsel only expressed a concern that the detective had confused statements given by the accomplice with statements given by defendant. Counsel neither raised a Rosario claim, nor put the court on notice of undisclosed Rosario material.
Several of defendant's remaining contentions are unreviewable because of defendant's failure to make a factual record (People v Hentley, 155 A.D.2d 392, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 919), and all are without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.