While providing pedigree information, defendant volunteered that he had no employment. Although the statement had some inculpatory value (see, People v. Nelson, 147 A.D.2d 774, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 794; People v. Miller, 123 A.D.2d 721, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 934), pedigree information provided by defendant to police during processing is not subject to suppression under CPL 60.45 and it is not subject to the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 (supra; see also, People v. Haddock, 174 A.D.2d 773, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011; People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Stewart, 160 A.D.2d 966). Thus, defendant's pedigree statement that he had no occupation was properly admitted, despite the lack of notice. This statement was probative of the fact that defendant did not possess the gun in his home or place of business, by establishing that his car was not a place of business.
Defendant's remaining challenges are meritless.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.