Majority
Appeal by the
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the suppression hearing should have been reopened based on the trial testimony of the eyewitness who identified the defendant’s car to the arresting officer is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to ask the trial court to reopen the hearing based on the eyewitness’s trial testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 665; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029 , 1031). In any event, that contention is without merit (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552 , 555). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Lopez 71 NY2d 662 at 665 p. 600
- People v. Martin 50 NY2d 1029 at 1031 p. 600
- People v. Clark 88 NY2d 552 at 555 p. 600