Opinion
Argued June 5, 2001.
August 6, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered September 23, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Debra E. Baker of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Beverly Kalman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to determine if the prosecutor violated the disclosure requirements of People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) by failing to produce notes allegedly taken by a police officer during a conversation with the victim at the scene of the robbery. The defendant's failure to request a hearing at a time when the trial court could have redressed the alleged Rosario violation constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Jackson, 78 N.Y.2d 900, 901; People v. Vacante, 215 A.D.2d 414, 415; People v. Laguer, 195 A.D.2d 483, 485). In any event, the defendant's Rosario claim is without merit. In the absence of any factual showing that the notes existed, the prosecutor's representation that there was no missing Rosario material was sufficient to resolve this issue (see, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144; People v. Shaw, 244 A.D.2d 582; People v. Sierra, 222 A.D.2d 216; People v. Perez, 209 A.D.2d 643; People v. Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634).
RITTER, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.