Opinion
June 22, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecution violated the Rosario rule because an investigating detective destroyed his handwritten notes, which recorded two spontaneous statements made by the defendant during the booking process. However, the defendant waived appellate review of this claim by pleading guilty in the midst of trial (see, People v. Cusani, 153 A.D.2d 574). In any event, by failing to raise a Rosario objection or to request any type of a remedy, the defendant deprived the County Court of "the opportunity to explore the issue of prejudice to defendant and to determine the appropriate sanction, if any, to be applied" (People v. Brooks, 174 A.D.2d 1050, 1050-1051). Accordingly, the defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Edwards, 179 A.D.2d 511; People v. Hilliard, 173 A.D.2d 559; People v. Mathews, 173 A.D.2d 565).
We also find that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of the witness Cummings. Cummings initially failed to identify the defendant from a photographic array. Two months later, Cummings viewed a lineup and made a positive identification of the defendant. In the absence of any indication that either the photographic array or the lineup was suggestive, the defendant's contention that Cummings' lineup identification was somehow tainted, solely because he previously viewed a photographic array, is without merit.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.