Opinion
December 12, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not err in failing to impose, sua sponte, a sanction for violation of the rule of People v Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286) where defense counsel made no application for such relief. In any event, a reversal of the defendant's conviction is not warranted under the circumstances. The record reveals that the arresting backup officer in a so-called "buy and bust" operation, discarded his notes containing the undercover officer's physical description of the defendant, but only after first transferring the information to a "Corroboration Buy Report" completed three days after the defendant's arrest. The report was made available to the defendant and the undercover officer was produced at trial and cross-examined extensively concerning her description of the defendant. No evidence was offered which suggested that the officer destroyed the notes in bad faith in order to frustrate the defendant's right to cross-examination (see, People v Vasquez, 141 A.D.2d 880; People v Jones, 130 A.D.2d 943, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 649).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.