Opinion
March 1, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution violated the rules set forth in People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. West, 184 A.D.2d 743; People v. Hilliard, 173 A.D.2d 559). In any event, the defendant received the material in time to conduct meaningful cross-examination of the witness who made the statement (see, People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835; People v. Fiacco, 172 A.D.2d 994). To the extent that the People may have violated the principles of Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83), reversal is not required, since the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to use the purportedly exculpatory material (see, People v. Anderson, 160 A.D.2d 806; People v Bolling, 157 A.D.2d 733).
The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a missing witness charge with respect to a police informant. We disagree. The record supports the trial court's determination that the informant's testimony would be cumulative, since three police witnesses and the informant were present during the transaction (see, People v. Solis, 173 A.D.2d 1089).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including that the sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.