Opinion
May 1, 1997
Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The record supports the court's factual conclusion ( see, People v. Nova, 198 A.D.2d 193, 194, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 808) that defendant's statements to the police while he was on the street were not the product of custodial interrogation. A reasonable, innocent person in defendant's position ( see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851) would have believed that he was being interviewed as a complainant, not a defendant ( People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907, 910, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 762). Given the limited scope of a suppression hearing, the court's restrictions on cross-examination were proper exercises of discretion ( see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846).
The court properly refused to dismiss a sworn juror, since the record does not support the conclusion that the juror "[was] grossly unqualified to serve in the case or [had] engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature" (CPL 270.35; see also, People v. Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214; People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290). In view of the remoteness of the matter revealed by the juror during trial, we find that the juror did not withhold material information during voir dire.
Defendant's contention that certain testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay is unpreserved and meritless ( see, People v Stansberry, 205 A.D.2d 317, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 910). The challenged portions of the People's summation do not warrant reversal ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.