Opinion
June 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Clifford Scott, J., Peter J. McQuillan, J.
The court did not err in permitting the prosecution to introduce, on its rebuttal case, a redacted copy of the affirmation in support of defendant's motion to suppress, which relied solely on defendant's assertions of the facts, and to question defendant about it. Informal judicial admissions, like those contained in a defense affidavit, may be introduced at subsequent proceedings when relevant and when the person who made the admission assumes an inconsistent position at the later proceeding ( People v. Foy, 212 A.D.2d 446, 447).
Nor was defendant denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel "decided to take the stand to further the defense" ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 151). Counsel's testimony was in no way adverse to defendant's interest. Counsel explained the purpose of motion practice and his duties as a defense attorney. He indicated that certain words used in the affirmation have technical legal meanings. He explained how he had paraphrased defendant's statements in asserting constitutional claims and that he had not included all that defendant had told him. He discussed why, in his view, the affirmation was consistent with what defendant had told him as well as defendant's trial testimony.
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.