Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People violated the Rosario rule by failing to turn over a report prepared by Lieutenant Hohmann (hereinafter the Hohmann Report), because this report constituted Rosario material as to a prosecution witness, Sergeant Shields. We disagree. The majority of the report merely sets forth the factual details of the investigation of the crime. It is a summary of information not attributed to any particular prosecution witness, nor does it contain any statements of prosecution witnesses (see, People v Chavis, 190 A.D.2d 683, 684; People v Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 787; People v Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790, 791; People v Mills, 142 A.D.2d 653, 654). Furthermore, although portions of the first and last paragraphs of the Hohmann Report are attributed to Sergeant Shields, we find that the defense received the duplicative equivalent of this material in a "DD5" report prepared by Sergeant Shields, which the defense stipulated had been turned over prior to trial (see, People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 454, cert denied 433 U.S. 914).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.