Opinion
August 21, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his request for a missing witness charge with respect to his girlfriend, a coperpetrator. According to the defendant, the prosecutor's showing that the girlfriend was under the influence of crack at the time of the incident did not demonstrate the inappropriateness of a missing witness charge. We disagree. A showing that an uncalled witness is "not knowledgeable" about a material issue is sufficient to oppose a request for a missing witness charge (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428). The defendant's claims that the prosecution's showing was tardy, self-serving and disingenuous are not supported by the record and were not accepted by the trial court, which is best suited to make such a determination (accord, People v. Gonzalez, supra, at 430). In any event, there was nothing to indicate that the uncalled witness's testimony would have been anything but cumulative (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or unpreserved. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.