Opinion
December 26, 1991
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
We reject defendant's request that we remit the matter to the trial court to determine if the prosecutor violated his obligation under People v Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, cert denied 368 U.S. 866, rearg denied 14 N.Y.2d 876, 15 N.Y.2d 765). Defendant admits that the record on appeal is insufficient for us to determine whether any Rosario violation occurred. It was appellant's burden to present a clear factual record for review (People v Rashid, 164 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 943; People v Hentley, 155 A.D.2d 392, 393, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 919). Having failed to request a hearing to determine whether any Rosario material existed, having failed to register any objection to the prosecutor's failure to turn over Rosario material, and having failed to apply for sanctions, defense counsel has not preserved the issue for appellate review (see, People v Nuness, 151 A.D.2d 987, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 816).
Lastly, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the court's charge on interested witnesses unduly singled out defendant as an interested witness.