Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court erred in failing to suppress testimony regarding the showup identification of the defendant at the station house by a department store security guard (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; cf., People v Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595). However, the court did not err in permitting the security guard to identify the defendant in court, as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that this witness had an independent basis for an in-court identification (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Cardwell, 162 A.D.2d 459). The erroneous admission of testimony regarding the showup identification was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence on the issue of identification (see, People v Adams, supra; People v Cardwell, supra).
We agree with the defendant's contention that his oral statements to a police officer in which he offered to "make a deal" and "become a fence" were not admissible against him at trial since these particular statements were not included in the People's notice pursuant to CPL 710.30, and the People failed to establish good cause for the delay in furnishing the required notice (see, People v Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728; People v O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479). Nevertheless, this error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; cf., People v O'Doherty, supra).
The defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his request to substitute counsel is without merit. The record reveals that the defendant failed to meet his burden of showing good cause (see, People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178).
The defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to submit certain lesser included charges to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the issue. Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and O'Brien, JJ., concur.