Opinion
November 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance, so as to enable him to secure a copy of a written statement supplied to the police by the complainant. We disagree. The prosecution was not required to turn the written statement over to the defendant pursuant to CPL 240.44, since the complainant was not called as a witness at the suppression hearing (see, People v Mills, 142 A.D.2d 653).
The record, in any event, establishes that the police had probable cause to arrest and search the defendant and that the written statement, if produced, would not have affected the ultimate decision on the issues in question (see, People v Kent, 143 A.D.2d 278). Indeed, the record discloses that the defendant was arrested and the contraband recovered before the complainant's statement was transcribed. Since the written statement had no direct bearing upon the issue of whether the police possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant, it cannot be said that the hearing court improvidently exercised its discretion by refusing to grant him a continuance (see, People v Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405; People v Meaney, 154 A.D.2d 555; People v Morton, 117 A.D.2d 631). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.