Opinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel prior to making the statements he made to the arresting officer (see, People v. Sirno, 151 A.D.2d 621; People v. Harris, 115 A.D.2d 619). Thus, the defendant's contention that the statements should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel is without merit.
Reversal is compelled, however, because the Trial Judge erred in refusing to require the People to disclose the data analysis form prepared by the Assistant District Attorney on duty on the night of the defendant's arrest to the defendant pursuant to People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). That form contained a statement clearly attributable to the prosecution's main witness. It was neither the duplicative equivalent of statements which had been previously disclosed nor the work product of the prosecutor (see, People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 453-454; People v. Pringle, 154 A.D.2d 410; cf., People v. Mills, 142 A.D.2d 653). Thus, the Assistant District Attorney should have provided it to the defendant, and his failure to do so constitutes reversible error (see, People v Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 547).
In light of the above analysis we need not reach the remaining contention raised by the defendant. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.