Opinion
(1273) KA 00-00236.
November 9, 2001.
(Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.)
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, WISNER, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to preclude the People from introducing photographs of the crime scene into evidence. The photographs were discoverable pursuant to CPL 240.20 (1) (d), but the People did not provide them to defendant until the first day of the trial. "The sanction to be imposed for the failure of the People to comply fully with discovery demands until the time of trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( People v. Poladian, 167 A.D.2d 912, 912-913, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881; see, CPL 240.70; see generally, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 520-521). Here, there was no showing of bad faith by the People or any prejudice to defendant and thus preclusion was not warranted ( see, People v. Rattray, 259 A.D.2d 569, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 977; People v. Williams, 195 A.D.2d 986, 987, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 905; People v. Poladian, supra, at 913). Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to direct the court reporter to transcribe the voir dire. That contention is not properly before us because defendant explicitly waived the transcription of voir dire ( cf., People v. Vasquez, 89 N.Y.2d 521, 534). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), and the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.