Majority
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to establish a factual basis to support his contention that there existed undisclosed Rosario material (see, People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144 , 149; People v Billups, 201 AD2d 740 ; cf., People v Adger, 75 NY2d 723 ). Accordingly, the trial court properly declined to conduct a hearing with respect to the defendant’s Rosario contention.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding from evidence a police report containing a purported prior inconsistent statement allegedly made by the complainant, since the defense counsel failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission by confronting the complainant with the alleged discrepancies (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74 , cert denied 442 US 910 ; People v Weldon, 111 NY 569 ; People v Banks, 151 AD2d 491 ; People v Jones, 136 AD2d 740 ; see also, Richardson, Evidence § 501 [Prince 10th ed]).
We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Poole 48 NY2d 144 at 149 p. 457
- People v. Adger 75 NY2d 723 p. 457
- People v. Duncan 46 NY2d 74 p. 457
- People v. Weldon 111 NY 569 p. 457
- People v. Banks 151 AD2d 491 p. 457
- People v. Jones 136 AD2d 740 p. 457