Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the "Unusual Occurrence Report" at issue, clearly contained statements made by the detective assigned to investigate the case, who was a witness for the People at the trial. At the hearing, the evidence eliminated the detective as the author of the document. In fact, the Supreme Court's findings indicated that it could not determine who wrote the report and whether the report contained statements made by a People's witness. Inasmuch as "[t]he Rosario rule only involves `the use of a recorded prior statement which was made either by the witness himself or by an individual who directly heard the statement'" (People v Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790, 791, quoting People v Williams, 165 A.D.2d 839, 841, affd on other grounds 78 N.Y.2d 1087), and there was no showing that the detective made the report or heard the statements asserted therein, the defendant's Rosario claim is rejected and his judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.