Opinion
August 10, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the appellant's contention that the agency should have been precluded from offering evidence of a statement he made to the police, as the agency failed to provide notice of its intention to offer the statement into evidence and did not demonstrate good cause for its failure to serve the required notice (see, People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728; People v O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479; CPL 710.30; Family Ct Act § 330.2, [8]). However, the admission of this testimony was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of the appellant's guilt (see, e.g., People v. Howard, 162 A.D.2d 615; People v. Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630; cf., People v. O'Doherty, supra).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in summarily denying the appellant's omnibus motion on the ground that it was untimely filed (see, Family Ct Act § 332.2, [3]), as his application did not present a compelling argument for suppression of statements or physical evidence (see generally, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649; People v. Howard, supra; cf., Matter of Anthony S., 162 A.D.2d 325).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Harwood, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.