PEOPLE v. KNEITEL

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his application to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing. A court may reopen a hearing during trial where, inter alia, the defendant makes a showing "that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the [original suppression] motion" (CPL 710.40). Here, the additional facts concerned the location where the defendant parked his car prior to his arrest. Since this was a fact of which the defendant is presumed to have knowledge, the application to reopen the hearing was properly denied (see People v Young, 278 AD2d 437; People v Hankins, 265 AD2d 572).

The issue of legal sufficiency is unpreserved for appellate review and the defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal.