Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court's plea allocution was insufficient to substantiate that the defendant understood that he was waiving the evidentiary suppression issues. The court did not inquire whether the defendant had read the typewritten waiver, whether the signature was in fact the defendant's, and if the defendant was aware of the contents of the waiver prior to executing it (see, People v DeSimone, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Fields, 196 A.D.2d 550). Therefore, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1), and we have examined the defendant's contentions regarding the denial of the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
On June 12, 1991, two police officers on patrol in a housing project in Queens encountered the defendant, who had a gun, in a stairwell. One of the officers shouted to the other that the defendant had a gun, and told the defendant to stop. However, the defendant ran away. The defendant contends that the officers acted improperly when they pursued him down the stairwell and across a parking field. Consequently, the defendant argues, the evidence obtained as the result of the illegal pursuit, i.e., 36 bags of crack cocaine he threw under a parked vehicle during the chase, should have been suppressed.
Where, as here, a defendant does not challenge at a suppression hearing the reliability of information relayed by a fellow officer to a police officer, the reliability of the information may be properly assumed (see, People v Appel, 103 A.D.2d 860). "`[T]he [defendant] must specifically challenge the reliability of the sender's information, as opposed to the sufficiency of the information provided * * * Where a motion to suppress does not attack the underlying basis * * * the presumption * * * remains * * *' (People v Bowdoin, 89 A.D.2d 986, 986-987; see, also, People v Jenkins, 47 N.Y.2d 722; People v Navarro, 61 A.D.2d 534) " (People v Ward, 95 A.D.2d 233, 239-240).
Thus, reliability was properly assumed by the trial court, and any argument that takes issue with that finding cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (see, People v Volpe, 60 N.Y.2d 803; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660; People v Doherty, 134 A.D.2d 513; People v Lee, 132 A.D.2d 625).
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.