Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly concluded that, with the exception of tape-recorded telephone calls dated April 22 and 23, 1986 involving defendant, the "third set" of tape-recorded conversations did not constitute Rosario material. The trial testimony of Investigator Urtis did not encompass conversations recorded on the "third set" of tapes. Therefore, those conversations were not relevant and did not "[relate] to the subject matter of the witness's testimony" (CPL 240.45 [a]; see, People v Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148; see also, People v Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 159).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecutor's request to reopen his direct case to offer evidence from a codefendant. The decision to reopen a case during trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Ventura, 35 N.Y.2d 654; People v Dixon, 147 A.D.2d 769, 773). Further, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, Penal Law § 40.05). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see, People v Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 750), we conclude that the defense of entrapment is not supported by a reasonable view of the evidence (see, People v DeGina, 72 N.Y.2d 768; People v Butts, supra; People v Thompson, 47 N.Y.2d 940).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and we find them either unpreserved for our review or, where preserved, to be lacking in merit.