Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain statements given by her to the police should have been suppressed because they were the product of an illegal arrest. We disagree. The victim's family, who were also related to the defendant, told the police that the defendant stabbed the victim. This information, which was corroborated by anonymous informants, provided the police with probable cause for the defendant's arrest. Accordingly, the defendant's statements were properly found to be admissible (see, People v Reid, 141 A.D.2d 774; People v Paden, 158 A.D.2d 554).
The defendant further contends that even though she was afforded a hearing on her motion to suppress, the court erred in failing to preclude her statement made to the arresting officer in the police car a few seconds after her arrest on the ground that no notice had been given pursuant to CPL 710.30. Assuming, arguendo, that the issue was preserved for appellate review, since the statement was not the product of police questioning but was spontaneous and uncontestably voluntary, the People were not required to give notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (see, People v Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 178; People v Simmons, 170 A.D.2d 15, 21; People v Kimbell, 169 A.D.2d 880; People v Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792; People v Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641; People v Early, 85 A.D.2d 752). Moreover, even if error occurred, it was harmless (see, People v Holland, 179 A.D.2d 822).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.