Opinion
May 23, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).
Defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved as a matter of law, since, at trial, he did not request any sanctions ( see, People v Jones, 200 A.D.2d 451, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 854), and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced by the delayed production of this material, which the prosecutor herself did not know existed until a police officer testified about it, and which defense counsel was given ample opportunity to inspect and consider and thereupon to cross-examine the witness ( see, People v. Witherspoon, 156 A.D.2d 306, 308-309, affd 77 N.Y.2d 95, cert denied sub nom. Carter v. New York, 499 U.S. 967). Furthermore, the material was not needed to connect the bill to defendant and render it admissible, the officer's testimony, that he placed the buy money in an envelope marked with defendant's name immediately after the arrest and that the money was subsequently vouchered at the station house, being sufficient by itself for that purpose. We have reviewed defendant's claim that the court's Sandoval ruling, permitting questioning of defendant about the existence of his two prior drug-related convictions without inquiry into the underlying facts, was an abuse of discretion, and find it to be without merit ( see, People v. Richards, 220 A.D.2d 268; see also, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.