DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the prosecution to introduce certain rebuttal evidence is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant did not object to the testimony ( see People v. Manning, 286 A.D.2d 690; People v. Brown, 285 A.D.2d 472, 473). In any event, the Supreme Court correctly permitted the use of the defendant's earlier statements made to law enforcement officials as rebuttal. The defendant received notice of the statements from the prosecution's CPL 710.30 notice and the resultant Huntley hearing ( see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72; cf. People v. Rigo, 273 A.D.2d 258), and the prosecutors gave the defense accurate notice of the content of the rebuttal testimony. Therefore, the statements were admissible to rebut the defendant's testimony ( see People v. Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845; People v. Lamour, 189 A.D.2d 825, 826).
PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.