Opinion
November 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the codefendant's appeal, this court held that the trial court did not err in closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of an undercover police officer (see, People v Weaver, 162 A.D.2d 486). The defendant has failed to offer any persuasive reason for this court to depart from its prior determination of this issue.
The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the People delayed in producing certain Rosario material, specifically, a chemist's notes and a voucher and request for lab examination prepared by an undercover police officer. We conclude that reversal of the defendant's conviction is not warranted, as the defense was not substantially prejudiced by this delay (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56). The People timely produced the chemist's report, which was based on his notes, as well as a copy of the undercover officer's buy report and daily activity report. The remaining documents were made available to defense counsel while the witnesses were still subject to cross-examination, and defense counsel did not request an adjournment to review this material (see, e.g., People v Provenzano, 154 A.D.2d 486).
The defendant's contention that the People failed completely to produce other documents which allegedly constituted Rosario material is without merit. Eiber, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.