Opinion
March 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new suppression hearing and trial are ordered.
We reject the defendant's contention that identification testimony should have been suppressed because the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). However, we find that a reversal of the defendant's conviction is required because the court erred in denying his request pursuant to People v Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) for disclosure of a "Data Analysis Form" (hereinafter DAF) prepared by the prosecution.
At the suppression hearing, the defense counsel requested that the People turn over the DAF, along with certain other documents alleged to constitute Rosario material. The court examined the documents and determined that they fell within the work product exemption to the Rosario rule and need not be disclosed. We conclude that this ruling was error with respect to the DAF, since it did not consist merely of factual details of the crime but contained statements attributable to prosecution witnesses, including the arresting officer who testified at the suppression hearing (see, e.g., People v Munoz, 161 A.D.2d 807; People v Rayford, 158 A.D.2d 482; People v Nelu, 157 A.D.2d 864; cf., People v Adger, 75 N.Y.2d 723). A de novo suppression hearing, as well as a new trial, are required, since the document should have been turned over during the suppression hearing (see, People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86; People v Pizzali, 159 A.D.2d 652; People v Rayford, supra).
In view of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contention. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.