February 4, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
The court properly ruled that the reports prepared by the Probation Department in connection with the testifying co-indictee were not Rosario material because they were confidential documents not within the possession or control of the People (CPL 390.50; People v. Morris, 153 A.D.2d 984, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 922; People v. Mayers, 100 A.D.2d 558, lv denied 62 N.Y.2d 651).
The court's preclusion of proposed testimony did not prevent defendant from presenting a defense. Rather, the court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the proposed testimony, as collateral, in that defendant's offer of proof indicated that the testimony concerned only the general credibility of a prosecution witness ( see, People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891). Further, since the possible reason for the witness to fabricate was acknowledged by the witness, the proposed testimony would have been cumulative ( see, People v. Brooks, 131 N.Y. 321, 326-327).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Saxe, JJ.