Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the record indicates that the People's notice of intent pursuant to CPL 710.30 was received in a timely manner, i.e., within 15 days after arraignment (see, CPL 710.30), and gave adequate notice to the defendant that the People intended to introduce two separate statements made by the defendant to the police, i.e., a videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney and an oral statement to a detective. The notice of intent set forth, inter alia, the substance of the oral statement and to whom it was made, and defense counsel had a full opportunity to challenge its admissibility at the Huntley hearing. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his oral statement to the police (see, People v Bennett, 56 N.Y.2d 837; People v Caudle, 128 A.D.2d 629; People v Brooks, 121 A.D.2d 392).
Further, the court properly allowed the jury to utilize typewritten transcripts as an aid to understanding the defendant's videotaped statement. The record indicates that both the prosecutor and defense counsel viewed and listened to the defendant's videotaped statement and attested to the accuracy of the transcripts (see, People v Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58; People v Carrasco, 125 A.D.2d 695; People v Tapia, 114 A.D.2d 983).
We find the defendant's remaining contentions to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v Quinones, 123 A.D.2d 793). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.