Opinion
January 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Alan Alpert, J., Edward McLaughlin, J.
On appeal, defendant complains that the People committed three Rosario violations (People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) requiring reversal of his conviction. Since Special Police Officer Green's 911 call for transportation did not constitute Rosario material, the court correctly declined to give an adverse inference instruction with respect to destruction of the 911 tape (People v Barrios, 163 A.D.2d 579). In addition, the court acted within its discretion in deciding that an adverse inference instruction was the most appropriate sanction for the routine destruction of a chart containing defendant's statement that he would have killed Green if he knew Green was going to arrest him (People v Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 931). Finally, the prosecutor's delay in turning over Green's memo book resulted in no prejudice to defendant since defense counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine Green regarding his memo book entries shortly after cross-examination commenced (People v Forrest, 163 A.D.2d 213, lv granted 76 N.Y.2d 868).
While defendant argues that the court committed reversible error in admitting defendant's partially redacted medical record, we find that defendant was not prejudiced since he could have called his own expert witness to testify as to the meaning of the redacted material, which we find to be incomprehensible absent expert testimony.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.