Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that reversible error took place as a result of the failure of the prosecutor to turn over an investigating officer's original notes, taken during an interview with the robbery victim, which contained a description of the suspects. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Simonds, 73 N.Y.2d 945; People v Merchant, 171 A.D.2d 887). In any event, although the practice employed by the officer in this case of transcribing original notes into a formal report and then destroying the notes has been held to be improper (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v. Roberts, 178 A.D.2d 622), in this case the defendant did not request any sanction (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937). Further, the defendant admitted that he was present during the robbery, and, therefore, the issue of identification was not contested (cf., People v. Wallace, supra).
Also without merit is the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that he received meaningful representation throughout (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.