Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to give an expanded circumstantial evidence charge. We disagree. Upon hearing a radio transmission that the proceeds of a burglary had been found in the trunk of his car, defendant stated that he had committed "a burglary". That statement, "if interpreted by the fact finder as a relevant admission of guilt, distinguishes this case from those based exclusively on circumstantial evidence" ( People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 880), and thus an expanded circumstantial evidence charge was not required ( see, People v. Barnes, 162 A.D.2d 1039, 1040, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 890; People v. Emery, 159 A.D.2d 992, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 787). Defendant further contends that reversal is required because the court refused to charge the jury that he could not be convicted without corroborative evidence ( see, CPL 60.50). The record contains the requisite corroborative evidence and thus the court's failure to give that charge does not require reversal ( see, People v. Pullman, 234 A.D.2d 955, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1099). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the issue of the voluntariness of defendant's statements. Defendant failed to raise an issue of fact at trial concerning the voluntariness of his statements ( see generally, People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288-289).
Contrary to the contention of defendant, the prosecutor was entitled to question him concerning a prior felony conviction when he testified before the Grand Jury ( see, People v. Thomas, 213 A.D.2d 73, 76, affd 88 N.Y.2d 821; People v. Love, 272 A.D.2d 913, 913-914, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 867). We reject the contention of defendant that the People improperly impeached his testimony at trial by cross-examining him concerning his failure to testify at the Grand Jury regarding information to which he testified at trial. Defendant chose to "narrate the essential facts of his involvement in the crime" before the Grand Jury and therefore was properly "cross-examined about his failure to [provide testimony] at that time [concerning] exculpatory circumstances to which he later testifie[d] at trial" ( People v. Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 676, cert denied 499 U.S. 1016; see generally, People v. Spinelli, 214 A.D.2d 135, 140, lv dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1025). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have reviewed defendant's contentions in the pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.