Opinion
September 29, 1995
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, David and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion for new counsel without making further inquiry regarding the reasons for the motion (see, People v Rancka, 193 A.D.2d 1123, 1124, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 725; People v Kirkland, 177 A.D.2d 946, 946-947, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 859; see generally, People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824).
The court properly denied discovery of documents and notes that formed the basis of the laboratory report concluding that the substance sold by defendant to the undercover officer was cocaine. Those documents and notes were not discoverable under article 240. Rather, they constitute Rosario material and were properly made available to defendant at trial (see, People v Christopher, 101 A.D.2d 504, 525, revd on other grounds 65 N.Y.2d 417; see also, People v Strong, 60 A.D.2d 792).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the read-back of testimony of certain defense witnesses requested by the jury during deliberations "was not in compliance with CPL 310.30, written jury procedure" ( see, People v Goldbeck, 218 A.D.2d 670), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
Lastly, we conclude that the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. "The mere fact that defendant was ultimately sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as a part of the plea bargain does not render his sentence harsh or excessive" (People v Bradley [appeal No. 1], 184 A.D.2d 1041, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 927). Moreover, "the mere fact that other cases, decided under differing factual circumstances, reveal a lesser sentence for the same crime does not warrant disturbing the trial court's exercise of discretion" (People v Quezada, 145 A.D.2d 950, 951; see also, People v Hoppe, 47 A.D.2d 571).