Opinion
October 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).
The record supports the court's finding that defendant's suppressed statement was voluntarily given so as to permit its use for impeachment purposes ( see, People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134, 140). There was no causal connection between defendant's physical injuries and possible drug use and his ability to provide a voluntary statement. Since defendant did not request a limiting instruction regarding the use of this statement, his claim of error is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the lack of such instruction caused no prejudice.
Defendant's challenges for cause were properly disallowed, given that the venirepersons unequivocally stated they could be impartial ( People v. Middleton, 220 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 848).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.