Opinion
March 9, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his statements should have been suppressed due to the prosecution's failure to supply him with proper notice of the statements pursuant to CPL 710.30 is without merit. The record demonstrates that the defendant was adequately notified of the challenged admissions well in advance of trial, and there is no suggestion that defense counsel was in any manner impeded in seeking the suppression of the statements (see, e.g., People v. Swanton, 107 A.D.2d 829; People v. Costello, 101 A.D.2d 244; People v. Brown, 92 A.D.2d 939). Moreover, the hearing court's factual determinations and assessment of credibility are entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759), and we discern no basis in the record for disturbing its conclusion that the defendant made the admissions after a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his rights.
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to the court's Sandoval ruling. The record establishes that the trial court engaged in a thorough balancing of the probative value and the prejudicial effect of an inquiry into the defendant's prior felony conviction (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236), and we perceive no abuse of discretion in the compromise ruling which it rendered (see, e.g., People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.