Opinion
March 13, 1992
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J.
Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to strike defendant's inculpatory statements to a police officer on the ground that they were not disclosed before trial pursuant to CPL 710.30 and 240.20. Crim. Proc. Because the contested statements were not the product of police questioning, but rather were spontaneous and voluntary, the People were not required to give notice to defendant of the statements pursuant to CPL 710.30 (see, People v DeBlase, 142 A.D.2d 926; People v McFadden, 126 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 953). We agree, however, with defendant that the People violated defendant's discovery demand by failing to disclose those inculpatory statements (see, CPL 240.20 [a]). Defendant requested that the court direct sanctions of either striking the statements or granting a mistrial because of the People's failure to comply with his discovery request (see, CPL 240.70). Those sanctions are not warranted where, as here, a simple adjournment or continuance, if requested by defense counsel, would have been sufficient to negate any prejudice to defendant caused by the People's failure to disclose (see, People v Beam, 161 A.D.2d 1153; People v Nelson, 144 A.D.2d 714, 716, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 894; People v Eleby, 137 A.D.2d 708, 709). Given those circumstances, the People's failure to disclose the statements to defendant does not warrant reversal (see, People v Herrera, 136 A.D.2d 567, 568-569, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1007).
Defendant also contends that prosecutorial misconduct on summation requires reversal. He asserts that the prosecutor impermissibly suggested on summation that, if defendant did not believe that the People's blood alcohol test was valid, he could have had an expert test the blood sample. Although it was improper for the prosecutor to suggest that defendant had any burden on that issue, reversal is not mandated because the court's curative instruction dispelled any prejudicial effect (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Singleton, 109 A.D.2d 763, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 930).