Opinion
April 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to CPL 240.20 (1) (k), the defendant was entitled to pre-trial disclosure of any written report or document concerning the subject "intoxilyzer" test. However, while full compliance with the Criminal Procedure Law would have been helpful to the defendant in this case, it "would not have affected the verdict of the jury" ( People v. Herrara, 136 A.D.2d 567, 568). Accordingly, any error in this regard was harmless.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to the disclosure of exculpatory information and the right to confrontation due to the prosecution's failure to disclose a conversation he had with a police officer after the selection of the jury is without merit. Although the failure of the People to disclose the conversation was a violation of Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83), the defense counsel did not request this information, and there was no "reasonable probability" that this error contributed to the verdict. Accordingly, vacatur of the defendant's judgment of conviction is not required ( see, People v. Scott, 216 A.D.2d 592; People v. Figueroa, 213 A.D.2d 669).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.