What are the implications of a court's failure to suppress a defendant's second statement?

This case is essentially indistinguishable from our decision in People v. Purdy, 53 N.Y.2d 806, 439 N.Y.S.2d 920, 422 N.E.2d 580. There the statements which should have been suppressed constituted nothing more than an express acknowledgement and reaffirmation of the defendant's prior statements which were held to be admissible. Nevertheless we held that the trial court's error in failing to suppress the subsequent statements could not be deemed to be harmless in light of the defendant's plea of guilty. Here the defendant's second statement is more incriminating. The defendant did not only reconfirm his involvement in the crime but he also provided the police with additional information, and potential leads, by identifying one of the other participants in the crime.