Opinion
November 24, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the judgment should be reversed due to the late delivery of Rosario materials ( People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) is without merit. The defendant did not move for a mistrial on this ground in the Supreme Court. In any event, reversal is not warranted because the defendant has not shown that the late delivery substantially prejudiced him ( see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56; People v. Murphy, 235 A.D.2d 933; People v. Farner, 234 A.D.2d 561; People v. Spencer, 219 A.D.2d 259; People v. Jenkins, 213 A.D.2d 674; People v. Gutierrez, 211 A.D.2d 822).
In addition, we reject the defendant's argument that the prosecutor violated the Rosario rule when she failed to disclose notes she allegedly possessed from interviews with the complaining witnesses. "[T]he representation of a prosecutor, as an officer of the court, ought generally to suffice to determine the threshold issue of whether or not any prior statements of a witness exist" ( People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149). Here, the prosecutor's representation that she did not take any handwritten notes regarding what the witnesses had said to her was sufficient to establish that she did not possess such statements.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.