Opinion
November 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defense witness regarding her failure to come forward to law enforcement officials with the substance of her exculpatory testimony. We disagree. A proper foundation was elicited before the prosecutor commenced this line of questioning (see, People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 322). Moreover, following this questioning the court instructed the jury that this witness was not obligated to come forward (see, People v. Payne, 50 N.Y.2d 867; People v Davis, 172 A.D.2d 553).
We also disagree with the defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was denied a fair trial because of the unavailability of certain Rosario material, since the record fails to demonstrate that this material ever existed.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either without merit or are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Shaw, 150 A.D.2d 626; People v. Addison, 174 A.D.2d 627; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Eiber, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.