Opinion
July 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant waived his claim that the search warrant was deficient because he failed to make a written motion challenging the warrant within 45 days after arraignment. Criminal Term was correct in not applying the exception to the 45-day filing rule provided in CPL 255.20 (3), because the information that supported his motion could have been learned, with due diligence, prior to trial.
Defendant's claim that he was prejudiced by portions of the prosecutor's summation has not been preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). His claim that the prosecution's cross-examination concerning his drug use denied him a fair trial has been preserved for review and, while error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt that was presented at trial ( People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Additionally, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence warrants modification in the interest of justice ( People v. Young, 111 A.D.2d 775). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.