Opinion
February 27, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).
Defendant's claim of a Rosario violation is without merit. The report in question did not constitute Rosario material because it did not contain a recorded statement "made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial, and which relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony" (CPL 240.45 [a]). Further, the notation on the report made by the detective who testified at trial, that the investigation was "active", does not render the report Rosario material, as such notation did not reflect activities about which the detective testified ( cf., People v. Banch 80 N.Y.2d 610, 620), nor did it otherwise relate to the subject matter of the detective's direct testimony ( People v. Goldman, 175 A.D.2d 723, 725, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1076). Nor does the report in question constitute Brady material ( see, People v. Howard 127 A.D.2d 109, 113, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 648).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.