With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". trial was prejudicial, we conclude that his contention lacks merit[.]”). Thus, Van Gorder was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s decision not to press this issue on direct appeal. 12. Failure to argue that notice of witnesses was not properly given pursuant to N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 710.30 Van Gorder asserts that appellate counsel should have argued that the prosecution erred in not timely serving notice pursuant to N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 710.30. Upon defense counsel’s motion for a § 710.30 notice, the prosecutor served a blank notice-blank because Van Gorder made no statements to the police, and no § 710.30 notice is required regarding statements made by Van Gorder to the complainant or to other civilian witnesses. See People v. Velez, 168 A.D.2d 207, 562 N.Y.S.2d 91 (1st Dep’t 1990) (<HOLDING>); People v. Bell, 161 A.D.2d 772, 556 N.Y.S.2d

A: holding that  71030 does not apply to statements made to civilian witnesses
B: holding that bruton does not apply to nontestimonial codefendant statements
C: holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant
D: holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
A.