Opinion
April 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the court failed to make a sufficient inquiry prior to denying his requests for new counsel. The court, with good reason, regarded these last-minute requests as dilatory tactics, and the vague reasons offered by the defendant did not compel further investigation (cf., People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822).
We do, however, agree with the defendant that the trial court erroneously permitted his written and videotaped confessions, which contained references to prior uncharged crimes, to be submitted for the jury's consideration in their entirety (see generally, People v Loomis, 178 N.Y. 400). Although the defendant's statements were descriptive of what could be considered a one-night crime spree, we cannot conclude that those portions of the statements which recited the events that ultimately culminated in the shooting were so "inextricably interwoven" with the description of the shooting as to be admissible on that basis (see, People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350). However, in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt, the error was harmless (People v Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Bolling, 167 A.D.2d 345).
Any error concerning the court's failure to deliver a limiting instruction with respect to the uncharged crimes is unpreserved for appellate review because no such instruction was requested, and no objection was registered on this ground (see, People v Mascoli, 166 A.D.2d 612; People v Bailey, 133 A.D.2d 462).
We further find that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to preclude identification testimony by one of the eyewitnesses as the People failed to show good cause for their failure to serve a timely notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (see, People v Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006; People v O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479). Nevertheless, we find that this error was also harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630; cf., People v O'Doherty, supra; People v McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855).
The contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.