Opinion
January 12, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the joint trial of these indictments, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to permit a rational trier of the facts to find that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Further, ample evidence was produced to support the jury's finding that the defendant was not a mere agent of the buyer but had in fact played an active role in the transaction (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64; People v. Gonzales, 66 A.D.2d 828).
We also find that while the trial prosecutor concededly did not comply with the provisions in CPL 240.45 by failing to turn over to the defense certain of the numerous tapes which contained conversations between the defendant and the informant before his opening statement, reversal is not required. Defense counsel was given the missing tapes before cross-examination of the witness involved therein and the court granted a continuance for him to listen to the tapes and prepare his cross-examination. Absent bad faith on the part of the prosecutor or prejudice to the defendant, neither of which are present here, the appropriate remedy for noncompliance with the statutory requirement that the material be delivered before, rather than after, the People's opening address is an adjournment, not preclusion (see, People v Donald, 107 A.D.2d 818; Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 240.70, p 418; see also, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56). Thus, reversal is not warranted.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.