PEOPLE v. NAGLE

Defendant's claim that he was entitled to immunity from the use of certain evidence he furnished at the direction of his employer essentially constitutes a claim that his indictment was based on inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, his guilty plea forecloses review of this argument (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227).

The motion court properly denied defendant's suppression motion without a hearing (see CPL 710.60; 60.45[2]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.