Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing is, in part, unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant's motion, made during the trial, was to reopen only the Huntley hearing ( see People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72), and was based on the defense counsel's contention that he had recently learned of certain new evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the defendant's arrest which warranted the suppression of the defendant's statements ( see People v. Hatchett, 225 AD2d 634). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reopen the suppression hearing, as the defendant is presumed to have knowledge of the evidence relating to the circumstances of his arrest ( see People v. Hankins, 265 AD2d 572; People v. Jordan, 231 AD2d 646, 647) and the defense counsel did not adequately explain why the motion could not have been made sooner ( see People v. Anderson, 201 AD2d 658, 659).