Opinion
April 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Murrary Mogel, J.).
The prosecutor's CPL 710.30 notice was proper even though it failed to specifically set forth three statements which defendant made to a police officer, which were made in the same conversation with that officer as the statement concerning which notice was properly given and which were entirely consistent with that statement. In any event, even if the admission of these statements were found to be error under CPL 710.30, such error was harmless (People v Simmons, 170 A.D.2d 15, 22-23, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1130). In addition, the hearing court properly admitted defendant's fourth statement upon the ground that it was spontaneous (People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476). Finally, since defendant never argued at the suppression hearing that his identification was the product of a suggestive "show-up", that argument is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any case, in challenging the suppression ruling, defendant's reliance on the trial record is improper (People v Giles, 73 N.Y.2d 666), rendering the argument factually unsupported.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.