Opinion
November 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to impose any sanction on the People for the destruction of an envelope containing handwritten notes of a detective. "As a general rule, a defendant has a right to inspect the prior statements of prosecution witnesses, prior to cross-examination, for impeachment purposes (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). However, there is no obligation to produce statements that are duplicative equivalents of statements previously turned over to the defense (see, People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, cert denied 433 U.S. 914; People v. Winthrop, 171 A.D.2d 829; People v. Velez, 161 A.D.2d 823)" (People v. Aguirre, 201 A.D.2d 485, 486). Here, Detective Nash testified that he wrote the codefendant's name and a description of the property recovered from the codefendant on the envelope. The detective turned the envelope over to Sergeant Smith, who subsequently destroyed it pursuant to common police practice. Since the testimony of Detective Nash established that the information written on the envelope was the duplicative equivalent of the statements contained in his official report, the court's failure to impose a sanction was not error (see, People v. Aguirre, 201 A.D.2d 485, supra; People v Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217; cf., People v. Gamble, 172 A.D.2d 687; People v. Diaz, 169 A.D.2d 776). O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.