Opinion
July 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court's thorough inquiry and investigation into the matter supports its determination that the Department of Probation did not possess any prior statements of the hearing witnesses at the time of the violation hearing, nor does it presently possess any such statements. Accordingly, the defendant's claim that the Department of Probation deprived him of due process by denying him access to the purported statements is without merit.
The defendant's challenge to the amended sentence imposed on June 3, 1991, has been rendered academic because it was further amended on March 25, 1992. Moreover, the sentence ultimately imposed is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.