Opinion
November 19, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the indictment should have been dismissed because of the prosecution's failure to submit her postarrest statement, in which she claimed that she shot the complainant in self-defense, to the Grand Jury. We disagree. The defendant's postarrest statement did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore need not have been submitted to the Grand Jury (see generally, People v. Smalls, 111 A.D.2d 38; cf., People v. Valles, 62 N.Y.2d 36).
The defendant's additional contention that the lineup identification was impermissibly suggestive because each of the "fillers" was wearing the same type of shoes, is also meritless. Indeed, an inspection of a photograph of the lineup reveals that a table obscured the feet and lower legs of each lineup participant and that the shoes of the participants were therefore not visible to an observer.
The defendant's remaining arguments are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Simmons, 158 A.D.2d 727; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 87; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.