Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Sparrow, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court's dispositional order must be reversed because of the presentment agency's failure to preserve and disclose alleged Rosario material (see, Family Ct Act § 331.4 [a]) in the form of a personal account written by the complainant of the sexual assault perpetrated by the appellant. It is clear, however, that the complainant's notes were only briefly shown to a police officer before they were eventually discarded by the complainant. Thus, unlike the police officers' notes at issue in People v. Wallace ( 76 N.Y.2d 953), they do not constitute Rosario material (see, People v. Reedy, 70 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Bailey, 135 A.D.2d 643, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 812; cf., Matter of Gina C., 138 A.D.2d 77). Moreover, the notes were not made at the direction of any law enforcement agent nor were they in the possession and control of the police or the presentment agency. Indeed, the attorney for the presentment agency was unaware of the existence of these notes until the complaining witness mentioned them on cross-examination. Accordingly, this case presents no reversible Rosario violation (see, People v. Bailey, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.