Opinion
March 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
Defendant's two Rosario claims are not preserved because he failed to raise them in the trial court (see, People v. Jackson, 78 N.Y.2d 900; People v. Simonds, 73 N.Y.2d 945). If we were to consider defendant's claims on the record established, we would find that he was not substantially prejudiced by the delayed disclosure of the December 27, 1990 examination notes (People v Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610, 617).
With respect to the July 8, 1991 notes, while there may be some ambiguity in the record, it was defendant's obligation to clarify that issue. We find indications in the record that these notes were in court and subject to a Rosario objection.
The court properly relied on Dr. Schneider's testimony (which considered defendant's self-inflicted injury), as well as his reports, the reports of Dr. Emilia Salanga, and its own observations in determining that defendant was competent to stand trial (People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 244, cert denied 488 U.S. 932). Nor was it an abuse of discretion not to order, sua sponte, a new competency hearing (People v. Rodriguez, 56 N.Y.2d 557), and we accord substantial deference to her decision that defendant was competent (People v. Robustelli, 189 A.D.2d 668, 672, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 975).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.