Opinion
May 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling reflected an appropriate compromise and did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion.
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by delayed delivery of allegedly exculpatory material, as defendant had meaningful opportunity to use the material as evidence in the case ( see, People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868). His claim that he was prejudiced by the timing of the disclosure rests entirely on speculation.
Following a hearing regarding defendant's claim of a Rosario violation, the hearing court properly determined, based upon the testimony of the parole officer that she did not receive information from any prosecution witness who testified at trial, that the documents did not constitute Rosario material ( People v. Woodside, 204 A.D.2d 168, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 873).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.