Opinion
November 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the People failed to disclose until trial that certain prosecution witnesses would testify under grants of immunity from the District Attorney's office. However, although a defendant must be made aware of the existence of such agreements between the prosecution and a witness in order to comply with the principles of Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83) (see, People v Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490, 496; People v. Cwikla, 46 N.Y.2d 434, 441), we find that here the defendant was made aware of those agreements in time to afford him a meaningful opportunity to utilize that information during the trial (see, People v Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870; People v. Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555, cert denied 479 U.S. 1093; cf., People v. Bailey, 162 A.D.2d 885). Thus, reversal is not warranted.
The defendant also attributes prejudicial error to certain of the prosecutor's remarks on summation. However, all but one of these contentions is unpreserved for appellate review. As to that one contention, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor's remark was harmless (see, People v. Wood, 66 N.Y.2d 374).
Finally, in light of the heinous nature of the crime and the defendant's extensive prior criminal record, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.