Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges, on Rosario grounds, the court's failure to permit his counsel to personally examine the entire contents of a case folder kept by Senior Investigator Donovan of the New York State Police. The court examined the folder in camera, directed that certain documents contained in it be provided to the defendant's counsel, and refused access to documents related to the codefendants which contained no reference to the defendant. We find that the court, following the procedure set forth in People v Poole ( 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149), properly examined the file in camera and determined that the documents which the defendant sought to obtain were not "relevant to the subject matter of a witness' testimony" (People v Poole, supra, at 149-150). There is no basis for setting aside the court's conclusion (see, People v Mills, 142 A.D.2d 653, 654).
We find no error in the trial court's second supplemental entrapment charge (see, Penal Law § 40.05; People v Romero, 136 A.D.2d 659, 659-660; People v Forsman, 128 A.D.2d 635; 1 CJI[NY] 40.05, at 930; Charges to Jury Criminal Case § 5:12). Lastly, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.