PEOPLE v. SCHNUGG

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frederick SCHNUGG, Appellant.

Decided: January 25, 1999

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ. Martin Geduldig, Hicksville, N.Y. (Karen A. Geduldig on the brief), for appellant. Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce E. Whitney and Alexis Kriedman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a felony (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the defendant's statement to the arresting officer that he was alone in the car at the time of the accident.   The defendant argues that this statement should have been suppressed since the People did not provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30.   However, this information was elicited by both the prosecutor and defense counsel during the Huntley hearing.   This testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing was sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the People's intent to use the statement (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 710.30, at 221;  see also, People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, 541 N.Y.S.2d 749, 539 N.E.2d 577, cert. denied 493 U.S. 859, 110 S.Ct. 170, 107 L.Ed.2d 127;  People v. Reid, 215 A.D.2d 507, 626 N.Y.S.2d 250).   Accordingly, the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the statement at that time (see, People v. Cooper, 78 N.Y.2d 476, 478, 577 N.Y.S.2d 202, 583 N.E.2d 915;  People v. Figueras, 199 A.D.2d 409, 410, 606 N.Y.S.2d 237).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard