PEOPLE v. LIGON

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The police lawfully stopped defendant's car for a traffic violation, and lawfully arrested him for driving with a suspended license.

An officer's comment while taking pedigree information did not require Miranda warnings. When defendant gave what the officer suspected to be a false name, the officer warned him that giving a false name would result in an additional charge. Such a warning is required under the false personation statute (Penal Law § 190.23). We find no basis for suppression of defendant's repetition of the false name, or his later post-Miranda statement. Ascertaining an arrestee's true name is a necessary part of the normal booking process, even if the response may have inculpatory connotations ( see People v McCloud, 50 AD3d 379, 380, lv denied 11 NY3d 738; People v Alleyne, 34 AD3d 367, lv denied 8 NY3d 918, cert denied 552 US 878). Furthermore, the warning was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. On the contrary, defendant had already incriminated himself by giving a false name, and the warning gave him an opportunity to retract his prior incriminating response ( see Matter of Travis S., 180 Misc 2d 234, 236-240 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1999], affd 271 AD2d 611, affd 96 NY2d 818).

Defendant's claim that the People violated the disclosure requirements of People v Rosario ( 9 NY2d 286, 289) is unreviewable, because nothing in the record indicates that the undisclosed police documents at issue contained anything pertaining to a witness's testimony, and because defendant forfeited the opportunity to develop a factual basis for his claim during trial ( see People v Pines, 298 AD2d 179, 180, lv denied 99 NY2d 562; People v Lorenzo, 272 AD2d 184, lv denied 95 NY2d 855).

Although the People did not comply with the requirements of CPL 240.45 (1) (b) regarding timely disclosure of a witness's criminal history, we find the error to be harmless ( see People v Pressley, 91 NY2d 825).