Opinion
October 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecution's failure to turn over the reports created by a police detective who did not testify at trial. We agree with the court's ruling made in connection with defendant's CPL 330.30 motion that the reports were not Rosario material because they did not relate to the subject matter of the complainant's direct testimony. Moreover, were we to apply a prejudice standard in light of the procedural setting of defendant's Rosario claim ( see, People v. Machado, 90 N.Y.2d 187, 192; People v. Kronberg, 243 A.D.2d 132), we would find no prejudice. We reject defendant's claim made pursuant to Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83) because these reports could not have affected the verdict.
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion. Since the theft-related crimes he had committed were highly relevant to his credibility, defendant was not entitled to be shielded from questioning about those crimes simply because he specializes in such crimes ( see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.