Opinion
2001-01084
Argued May 1, 2003.
May 27, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), rendered January 29, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsi of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's participation in the suppression hearing does not affect the reviewability of the denial of his motion to preclude evidence pursuant to CPL 710.30 (see People v. Mezon, 80 N.Y.2d 155, 160-161; People v. Bernier, 141 A.D.2d 750, 753, affd 73 N.Y.2d 1006; cf. People v. Sigue, 300 A.D.2d 414, 415, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 619). CPL 710.30 is a notice statute intended to facilitate a defendant's opportunity to challenge before trial the voluntariness of his statements (see People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289, 291-292; People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 484; People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 179; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72), and the reliability of identification testimony (see People v. Laing, 79 N.Y.2d 166, 170; People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, 474, cert denied 493 U.S. 859; People v. Collins, 60 N.Y.2d 214, 219; People v. Sigue, supra; People v. Pannell, 287 A.D.2d 659; cf. People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552). Thus, the statute requires that whenever the People intend to offer evidence of a defendant's statements to a public officer, or testimony of an observation of the defendant at the time of the crime or on other relevant occasion, they must serve notice of such intention on the defendant within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (see CPL 710.30; People v. Lopez, 84 N.Y.2d 425, 428). Despite the minor defects in the notices the People furnished in this case, these notices fulfilled the purpose of the statute by informing the defendant of the statements intended to be offered at the trial, and the evidence of the previous identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.