People v. ShippyPeople v. Shippy
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Frazier, 33 AD3d 934, 935 [2006]; People v Britz, 239 AD2d 428, 429 [1997]). The defendant was not entitled to suppression of the bag of cocaine that the police recovered after he abandoned it (see People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 448-449 [1992]; People v Wilson, 5 AD3d 408, 409 [2004]). Further, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant‘s inculpatory statements, some of which were spontaneous, were all voluntarily made to the police after he received Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) and waived his rights (see People v Howard, 60 NY2d 999, 1001 [1983]; People v Santos, 38 AD3d 574, 575 [2007]; People v Davis, 32 AD3d 445, 445-446 [2006]).
Finally, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to the review of his claim that the People‘s CPL 710.30 notice was insufficient (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]). In any event, no notice of the photographic identification was required, since evidence of the photographic identification was not admissible at trial on the People‘s case-in-chief (see People v Grajales, 8 NY3d 861, 862 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.