Opinion
January 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.).
The record does not support defendant's claim that the parties intended to preclude the introduction of evidence that defendant drove his grandmother's car, when they entered into a stipulation that in return for defendant's withdrawal of his motion for a Mapp hearing, the prosecutor would not introduce photographs of the car or its contents at trial.
The testimony of the investigating officer that she learned that defendant drove this vehicle was properly admitted as an admission against interest (People v. Bethea, 159 A.D.2d 384, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 785), and also served to connect defendant to the crime (People v. Diaz, 189 A.D.2d 574, 575, lv denied sub nom. People v. Garrastequi, 81 N.Y.2d 885), where the underlying basis for the officer's knowledge was a release which defendant signed in order to retrieve the vehicle from the Westchester police department after it had been stolen on a previous occasion.
Defendant's argument regarding the People's failure to give him notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (a) prior to using the information contained in the release at trial is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v. Vernon, 209 A.D.2d 283), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that no notice was required since the release was not admitted into evidence, and, in any event, "there was no question of voluntariness" regarding the statement (People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 178).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.