Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was wrongfully denied Rosario material because the prosecutor impermissibly withheld from the defense the Grand Jury testimony of witness Michael Cockerel (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). Since Cockerel was not called by the People to testify at trial, and was in fact called by the defense, his Grand Jury testimony was not Rosario material (see, People v. Gardner, 162 A.D.2d 466).
We also reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor failed to disclose that one of its witnesses was testifying pursuant to an agreement, and failed to correct misstatements of this witness in this regard (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; People v. Steadman, 82 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490, 496; People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554). The record demonstrates that during both his opening statement and summation the prosecutor made the jury aware that its witness received a reduced sentence for his testimony. In addition, during the witness's testimony the jury was informed as to the details of the witness's reduced sentence.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present during the trial court's side bar voir dire of prospective jurors. This argument must be rejected as the defendant's trial commenced in October 1986 and the rule entitling a defendant to be present during side bar voir dires applies prospectively to trials commencing after April 7, 1992 (see, People v. Sprowal, 84 N.Y.2d 113; People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.