Opinion
March 4, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to sever his trial from his codefendant's trial since his defense and the codefendant's defense were not irreconcilable ( see, People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 184-185).
In addition, the Supreme Court properly prevented the defendant from asking his codefendant, who testified for the defense, about his motive in pleading guilty. A party may not impeach his or her own witness in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement ( see, People v Figueroa, 153 A.D.2d 576; CPL 60.35; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-423 [Farrell 11th ed]).
Nevertheless, the defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court committed reversible error by denying his request, pursuant to People v Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 263, cert denied 368 U.S. 866; see also, People v Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 547), that the People turn over the Grand Jury synopsis sheet that was compiled by the prosecution during an interview with two prosecution witnesses. Upon our review of the Grand Jury synopsis sheet, we find that it does not merely set forth the factual details of the crime, but that all of the statements contained in it can be attributed to the two aforementioned prosecution witnesses ( see, People v Adger, 75 N.Y.2d 723, 731; People v Rayford, 158 A.D.2d 482; People v Nelu, 157 A.D.2d 864). Therefore, a new trial is required. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.