Opinion
May 22, 1987
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. He cites as reversible error the failure of the People to have produced at the suppression hearing an interdepartmental memorandum which was prepared by Investigator McArdle and which contained information McArdle had received from an informant. McArdle testified at the hearing that early on the morning of August 22, 1983, upon receiving the information from the informant, he prepared the memorandum for delivery to officers working a later shift. Defendant was arrested by those officers on the evening of August 22. McArdle further testified that the memorandum had been "routinely destroyed" by the police department.
Since the memorandum related to the subject matter of McArdle's testimony, it was discoverable by defendant (see, CPL 240.45; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, cert denied 433 U.S. 914; People v. Gilligan, 39 N.Y.2d 769; People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, cert denied 368 U.S. 866, rearg denied 14 N.Y.2d 876, rearg denied 15 N.Y.2d 765). The failure to produce the memorandum in the circumstances presented here, however, does not constitute reversible error. The record contains no suggestion that the memorandum was destroyed in bad faith to frustrate defendant's right to cross-examination (see, People v. Paranzino, 40 N.Y.2d 1005; People v. Sirianni, 97 A.D.2d 938). Moreover, defendant's counsel had a full opportunity to cross-examine McArdle and the other officers concerning the content of the memorandum and the specifics of the information received by McArdle from the informant (see, People v. Perez, 50 A.D.2d 908).
Also without merit is defendant's claim that the search of his duffle bag was unconstitutional. The record amply supports the determinations of the suppression court that the stop of defendant was based upon reasonable suspicion and that the search of the duffle bag was proper to ensure the safety of the police officers (see, People v. Brooks, 65 N.Y.2d 1021). In any event, we could credit the testimony of the police officers that defendant consented to the search.
We have reviewed defendant's other claims of error and find them to be without merit.