Opinion
February 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the defendant correctly contends, the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress testimony of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test, as the officer administering the test did not advise the defendant that his refusal could be used against him at a trial, proceeding, or hearing resulting from the arrest and that it could result in the revocation of his driver's license. However, this error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Reding, 167 A.D.2d 716, 717; cf., People v. Boone, 71 A.D.2d 859, 860).
The defendant's contention that police officers were permitted to give expert testimony as to his intoxication, is without merit. The officers did not testify as experts, but as lay witnesses ( see, People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419, 428; Renzo v. Tops Friendly Mkts., 136 A.D.2d 952, 953).
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.