PEOPLE v. MIKEL (2003)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts each of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [3] ) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30[5] ), 11 counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15[1], [2], [4] ) and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03).   Defendant moved to suppress a map that he drew of the crime scenes on the ground that it was not included in the CPL 710.30 notice.   We reject the contention that Supreme Court erred in denying that motion.   The motion by defendant to suppress all of his statements, including nonverbal statements, “render[ed] any alleged deficiency in the CPL 710.30 notice irrelevant” (People v. Neal, 262 A.D.2d 1002, 1003, 693 N.Y.S.2d 794, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1023, 697 N.Y.S.2d 582, 719 N.E.2d 943;  see People v. Ginty, 299 A.D.2d 922, 750 N.Y.S.2d 540;  People v. Laws, 286 A.D.2d 991, 730 N.Y.S.2d 911, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 706, 739 N.Y.S.2d 107, 765 N.E.2d 310;  People v. Johnson, 280 A.D.2d 613, 614, 721 N.Y.S.2d 88).   In any event, the People's notice of intention to introduce statements by defendant at trial “was sufficient under CPL 710.30 to apprise the defendant that they would be introducing [the map] * * * since the statements contained the sum and substance of what the map indicated” (People v. Springer, 221 A.D.2d 386, 386, 633 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 925, 641 N.Y.S.2d 607, 664 N.E.2d 518).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: