Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
For the first time on appeal, the defendant complains that a police officer's trial testimony was inconsistent in some respects with the officer's hearing testimony and, because of the resulting prejudice, this court should reverse his conviction. It is well-settled, however, that a defendant must request a reopening of the suppression hearing to preserve such a claim for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187, 219, affd. 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert. denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 77; People v. Perez, 104 A.D.2d 454, 455-456; People v. Smith, 89 A.D.2d 881, 882). The defendant neglected to make such a request and, under the circumstances of this case, review is not warranted in the interest of justice.
Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention that the police officer's testimony was either fabricated or tailored to nullify constitutional objections, we hold that the hearing court properly found the police officer's testimony to be "forthright, candid and credible". Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.