Opinion
October 28, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision that the term of imprisonment is to run consecutively with "any term [the defendant is] presently serving", and substituting therefor a provision that the terms of imprisonment run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that there was a Rosario violation (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 886) is without merit. Although one of the investigating detectives destroyed his original notes which he used to prepare an investigative report, he did not testify at trial (see, CPL 240.45 [a]; People v. Rosario, supra). Similarly, there was no showing of a Rosario violation with respect to the complainant's testimony because there was no indication that she made any notes relating to the subject matter of her testimony (see, CPL 240.45 [a]).
We find the sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indicated.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Harwood, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.