Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court should have imposed a sanction because of the People's failure to provide him with a police officer's handwritten notes is without merit. As a general rule, a defendant has a right to inspect the prior statements of prosecution witnesses, prior to cross-examination, for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). However, there is no obligation to produce statements that are duplicative equivalents of statements previously turned over to the defense (see, People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 454, cert denied 433 U.S. 914; People v. Winthrop, 171 A.D.2d 829; People v. Velez, 161 A.D.2d 823). Here, the arresting officer testified that he wrote down the names and addresses of the defendant and codefendants at the scene of the arrest. He then transferred the information to the police reports and destroyed the notes. The officer testified that there was no other information in the notes. Under these circumstances, the court's failure to impose a sanction was not error (see, People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217; People v. Winthrop, supra). In any event, we note that the defendant was not prejudiced by the destruction of the arresting officer's handwritten notes (see, People v Daly, supra).
The defendant further claims that the court erred by refusing to deliver a missing witness charge with respect to a confidential informant. The record reveals that the informant disappeared of his own volition, without any assistance from law enforcement officials, and that the People exerted diligent efforts to locate him, but to no avail. The court therefore properly denied the defendant's request on the ground that the witness was unavailable to the People (see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532; People v. Matthews, 185 A.D.2d 900).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.