PEOPLE v. HICKS

There is no merit to defendant's claim that his explicit waiver of his right to appeal the suppression ruling was "coerced to conceal error" ( People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11). Defendant's argument misconstrues the concept of "concealment" addressed in Seaberg. As the Court of Appeals subsequently explained in People v. Holman ( 89 N.Y.2d 876, 878), "Avoidance of an appeal of openly explored, arguable issues of law is not concealment of error for these purposes". Accordingly, defendant's valid waiver forecloses review of his suppression claim, which in any event will not warrant reversal.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.