Opinion
June 17, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we discern no violation of the Rosario principle in the People's nondisclosure of a "Homicide Bureau Report" authored by an Assistant District Attorney who testified for the People at trial. The record reveals that the report constituted a type of internal worksheet containing, inter alia, the name of the trial assistant who had taken the defendant's statements, the detective assigned to appear in the event of Grand Jury action and the names and addresses of witnesses. According to the trial assistant who had compiled it, the report was created so as to ensure that the Assistant District Attorney charged with subsequently presenting the case to the Grand Jury "could keep track of all the evidence in the case". Under these circumstances, and since the report contained neither the statements of witnesses nor interview summaries drawn from statements of witnesses, the report constituted work product that was not subject to disclosure as Rosario material (see, CPL 240.10; cf., People v Adger, 75 N.Y.2d 723, 726; People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 452-453, cert denied 433 U.S. 194; People v Rayford, 158 A.D.2d 482; People v Bell, 140 A.D.2d 937). Although the disclosure of statements made by two other prosecution witnesses was delayed, the record establishes that the defendant sustained no discernible prejudice as a result (cf., People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.