Opinion
May 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.).
After sufficient inquiry, the trial court properly accepted the People's representation that their standard summary form, claimed by defendant to be Rosario material, actually contained no witness statements, but only a digest of preexisting witness statements (see, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149). We also find no violation of the People's duty to disclose "exculpatory" material, because there was no reasonable possibility that non-disclosure contributed to the verdict (People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67, 77).
Were we to review defendant's unpreserved claim concerning a missing witness instruction, we would find that the request for such an instruction (made by codefendant only) was untimely (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427-428).
We also note that each of the above claims was unsuccessfully raised on appeal to this Court by codefendant Ernest Robinson, whose conviction we reversed on the grounds that codefendant's opening statement was improperly cut short, with inappropriate comments by the court ( 202 A.D.2d 225). Our reversal of codefendant's conviction does not require reversal of this defendant's conviction, because this defendant's opening was uninterrupted, and he made no objection regarding codefendant's opening.
We find the sentence to be unduly harsh, to the extent indicated.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.