Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his written statement made at the precinct less than an hour after being given his Miranda rights at the crime scene was properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Vasquez, 183 A.D.2d 864; see also, People v Adkins, 145 A.D.2d 937).
The defense psychiatrist's progress notes relating to his examination of the defendant were discoverable under CPL 240.30 (1) (a). The notes related to "psychiatric evidence" that the defendant had "filed a notice of intent to proffer" at trial and they were documents which were made by a person other than the defendant, "whom [the] defendant intend[ed] to call as a witness at trial" (CPL 240.30 [a]; see also, People v Fratt, 146 Misc.2d 77; see also, People v Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, affd 67 N.Y.2d 625). Therefore, in this case, the defendant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the People obtained the defense psychiatrist's progress notes.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.