PEOPLE v. REINARD (1997)

 We reject the contention of defendant that County Court should have suppressed a statement that he made to an investigator at police headquarters following his arrest.   The evidence at the Huntley hearing supports the court's conclusion that the statement was spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v. Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795, 473 N.Y.S.2d 945, 462 N.E.2d 122;  People v. Strickland, 151 A.D.2d 978, 979, 542 N.Y.S.2d 423, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 819, 546 N.Y.S.2d 577, 545 N.E.2d 891;  People v. Allnutt, 148 A.D.2d 993, 539 N.Y.S.2d 598, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 736, 545 N.Y.S.2d 110, 543 N.E.2d 753).

 Defendant further contends that reversal is required because the statement attributed to him at trial by the police investigator varied from the statement in the People's CPL 710.30 notice.   We disagree.  “When a defendant's oral statement is to be used at trial, the People need not give a verbatim report of the complete oral statement in their CPL 710.30 notice” (People v. Laporte, 184 A.D.2d 803, 804, 584 N.Y.S.2d 662, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 905, 588 N.Y.S.2d 831, 602 N.E.2d 239;  see, People v. Reed, 197 A.D.2d 844, 602 N.Y.S.2d 258, affd. 84 N.Y.2d 945, 620 N.Y.S.2d 816, 644 N.E.2d 1372;  People v. Garrow, 151 A.D.2d 877, 878-879, 542 N.Y.S.2d 849, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 948, 550 N.Y.S.2d 282, 549 N.E.2d 484).  The notice is sufficient where, as here, it advises defendant of the “sum and substance” of his statement (People v. Holmes, 170 A.D.2d 534, 535, 566 N.Y.S.2d 93, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 961, 570 N.Y.S.2d 495, 573 N.E.2d 583).  In any event, because the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would otherwise have been acquitted, any error with respect to the statement is harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Wheaton, 148 A.D.2d 931, 932, 539 N.Y.S.2d 169, lv. denied74 N.Y.2d 853, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 546 N.E.2d 201).

Finally, based on our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: