Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was ample support in the record for the hearing court's denial of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony. The complainant's identification of the defendant during a neighborhood canvass provided a sufficient basis for the detective's exercise of the common-law right to inquire (see, People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210).
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request to preclude the complainant's testimony describing the person who robbed her as a sanction for failing to preserve the audio-tape of the complainant's telephone call to 911 (see, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929). The sanction imposed, an adverse inference charge, was sufficient under the circumstances, since there was no evidence of bad faith by the prosecution, and the so-called "Sprint" tape containing communications between police officers and a police department operator was furnished to the defense (see, People v. Diggs, 185 A.D.2d 990; People v. Deas, 174 A.D.2d 751).
Finally, the defendant's challenges to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Santos, 176 A.D.2d 245). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.