Opinion
September 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. At a Rodriguez hearing ( People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), the People provided ample evidence of relationship familiarity between defendant and the witness, who had been roommates for at least several months. Police testimony as to the witness statements concerning the relationship was sufficient to meet the People's burden at the hearing ( compare, People v. Cotto, 222 A.D.2d 345. lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 846, with People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 883).
The court correctly limited the admission of the nonwitness accomplice's hearsay statements to those genuinely against his penal interest ( see, People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9, 16), and we find no alternate theory under which the hearsay statements purportedly favorable to defendant could have been admitted.
Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.