Defendant was not in custody and the officers were not attempting to elicit any incriminating evidence from defendant when they responded to the scene of the stabbing, found one person bleeding, asked defendant to "step back" and attempted to ascertain what had occurred (see, People v. Chappelle, 189 A.D.2d 695). Assuming that the People's failure to give CPL 710.30 notice of a statement defendant made to one officer that was identical to the statement made to another officer of which the People did give notice made it error to admit the first statement, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (People v. Martinez, 203 A.D.2d 212; People v. Manson, 176 A.D.2d 294, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 860). Defendant's claim that the prosecutor's summation impugned the integrity of his counsel by warning the jury not to let him "pull the wool over [their] eyes" and characterizing the evidence elicited by the defense was a "red herring" did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, e.g., People v. Flores, 191 A.D.2d 306, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1013; People v. Emphram, 191 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 947).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.