Opinion
February 8, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in denying his request during trial for a Rosario hearing. A detective testified that he thought he saw an Assistant District Attorney take handwritten notes while he relayed the defendant's statements to him. The prosecutor expressly represented that his colleague typed his notes, which the defense received, directly on a laptop computer when he spoke with the detective. Therefore, a Rosario hearing was not necessary since the detective's speculative and equivocal testimony was insufficient to support the defendant's claim that handwritten paper existed and that it contained the statements ( see, People v. Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634; cf., People v. Guido, 186 A.D.2d 757).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.