Summary
holding that defendant not entitled to statutory notice of statements allegedly made by him to complainant who was a civilian and not a public servant or acting as an agent of law enforcement authorities
Summary of this case from Van Gorder v. AllerdOpinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's further contention, he was not entitled to notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 with respect to statements allegedly made by him to the complainant "since the [complainant] was a civilian and was neither a public servant nor acting as an agent of law enforcement authorities" (People v Rodriguez, 114 A.D.2d 525, 526; see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 448). In any event, the prosecutor was precluded by the trial court from questioning the complainant concerning the defendant's statements. Moreover, the defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the prosecutor failed to turn over his notes concerning his interview with the complainant about the defendant's statements, in violation of People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286), is based upon matters dehors the record, and cannot be considered on this appeal.
In addition, we find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant was based upon his independent observation of the defendant during the robbery and not on a suggestive police station viewing of the defendant.
The defendant's other contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.