Opinion
March 18, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People's failure to furnish timely notice of their intention to introduce his inculpatory statement at trial requires reversal of his conviction. We disagree. Although the People did not establish good cause for their failure to timely apprise the defendant that they intended to introduce his statement at trial (see, CPL 710.30; People v O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 486; People v St. Martine, 160 A.D.2d 35; People v Bernier, 141 A.D.2d 750, 753, affd 73 N.Y.2d 1006), the admission of the statement was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v O'Doherty, supra; People v Mole, 147 A.D.2d 714; People v Pinney, 136 A.D.2d 573).
The record reveals that the complainant, a taxi cab driver, picked up the defendant and was instructed to proceed to a dead end street in Brooklyn. When the complainant asked the defendant for the fare, the defendant responded by requesting change of a $20 bill. As the driver removed a wad of bills from his pocket in order to make change, the defendant placed a rope around the driver's neck and began to strangle him. Two police officers who had been surveilling the area observed the entire transaction as it unfolded and promptly arrested the defendant, recovering the rope. In light of the foregoing, the erroneous admission of the defendant's statement was harmless.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331; People v Wilson, 56 N.Y.2d 692, 694; People v Silas, 158 A.D.2d 561; People v Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and O'Brien, JJ., concur.