Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on whether the Grand Jury synopsis sheet is Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court shall file its report with this Court with all convenient speed.
The trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant's request for the production of the Grand Jury synopsis sheet without first conducting an in camera review of the synopsis sheet or a voir dire of its author to determine whether it was Rosario material and, therefore, subject to disclosure (see, People v Adger, 75 N.Y.2d 723; People v Liles, 145 A.D.2d 509; see also, People v Miles, 23 N.Y.2d 527, cert denied 395 U.S. 948). We conclude that it is appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to direct production of the synopsis sheet and to determine whether the defendant was entitled to it pursuant to People v Rosario (supra).
Since the appeal is being held in abeyance, we decline to reach the other issues raised by the defendant at this time. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.