| People v Hassell |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06619 [175 AD3d 1427] |
| September 18, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Donovan Hassell, Appellant. |
Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jared A. Chester and Amanda Manning ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K.Corrigan, J.), rendered October 31, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery inthe third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation inlieu of motions (Alan L. Honorof, J.), of the suppression of identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the course of a suppression hearing, the prosecutor orally moved to amend the CPL710.30 (1) (b) notice to correct the location of the police station where a photographicidentification occurred. The application was granted, and the suppression of identificationtestimony was denied. On appeal, the defendant contends that the CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice wasdefective.
"By pleading guilty, a defendant forfeits his [or her] right to seek reversal of his [or her]conviction on the ground that identification testimony or evidence of prior statements isinadmissible because the prosecution failed to provide the required notice of intention to offersuch evidence at trial" (People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; see People vSirico, 135 AD3d 19, 24 [2015]). While CPL 710.70 (2) provides that a defendant may seekappellate review of a determination denying the suppression of identification evidence evenwhere the defendant has pleaded guilty, neither this provision, nor any other, permits appellatereview of the denial of an application to preclude identification evidence on the ground that thenotice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b) was defective (see CPL 710.70 [2]; People vTaylor, 65 NY2d at 3-6; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005 [2013]). Balkin, J.P.,Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.