Opinion
April 19, 1996
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to exclude the testimony of all witnesses to the Ames Department Store incident as a sanction for a Rosario violation. While the People's failure to disclose before the suppression hearing police notes of those witnesses' interviews constitutes a Rosario violation ( see, People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86), it is undisputed that defense counsel received the notes before trial. The remedy for a pretrial Rosario violation is a new suppression hearing ( see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610, 617-619). Because defendant did not seek that relief, any claim arising from the possible violation of his Rosario rights must be deemed abandoned ( see generally, People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; People v. Thomas, 226 A.D.2d 1071 [decided herewith]; People v. Tamayo, 222 A.D.2d 321).
We likewise reject the contention that the evidence of the showup identification should have been suppressed. Because the showup was conducted at the scene of the crime shortly after its commission, it was an appropriate means of securing a prompt identification and was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Torres, 210 A.D.2d 875, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Boles, 198 A.D.2d 837, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 802).
We further conclude that prosecutorial misconduct on summation, which included "injecting the integrity of the District Attorney's office into the case" ( People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934), does not warrant reversal because defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial ( see, People v. Woodard, 112 A.D.2d 454, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 769; People v. Rubin, 101 A.D.2d 71, 77).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by defense counsel and by defendant pro se and conclude that they are without merit.