Opinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the People did not fail to turn over the Rosario material in question (see, People v. Johnson, 155 A.D.2d 339).
Prior to executing an order to remove the defendant from jail and place the defendant in a lineup, the People were under no obligation to first attempt to contact the assigned attorney who had represented the defendant in an unrelated criminal matter (cf., People v. Coates, 74 N.Y.2d 244, 249). In any event, we note that the defendant was represented at the lineup by an attorney who had been appointed for him by the Queens County Supreme Court. Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant's contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive (cf., People v Bady, 202 A.D.2d 440).
The defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.