Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to the defendant's Sandoval motion, the court ruled that the prosecutor would be precluded from questioning the defendant about his previous arrest for criminal possession of a weapon. However, by asking the defendant whether he had ever owned a gun, the defense counsel opened the door for the prosecutor to ask the defendant about his past arrest for possession of a weapon, to the extent that it was probative of the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Morgan, 171 A.D.2d 698; People v. Garcia, 160 A.D.2d 258, 259).
Nor does the alleged Rosario violation warrant reversal. When Rosario material cannot be produced because of its loss or destruction, and a defendant suffers prejudice, an appropriate sanction may be imposed (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937). In this case, however, the defense counsel's request for a mistrial was inappropriate. As the trial court stated, granting a mistrial would have had no pragmatic effect since the statement would not have been available at a retrial. "Since [this was] the only sanction * * * requested by the defendant, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request" (People v. Roberts, 178 A.D.2d 622, 623).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.