Opinion
January 24, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the prosecution's delay in producing a letter from Division of Parole which allowed one of the People's witnesses to assist in narcotics investigations constituted a violation of the Rosario rule. We disagree. Since the letter was written by a person who was not a prosecution witness, it did not constitute Rosario material (see, People v Alejandro, 175 A.D.2d 873). Even assuming, arguendo, that the letter was Rosario material, it was eventually provided to the defense counsel and the defendant failed to show how she was prejudiced by the delay (see, People v. Robertson, 192 A.D.2d 682; People v. Burks, 192 A.D.2d 542).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive or unduly harsh (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.