Opinion
June 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
Defendant's guilt in this buy-and-bust case was proved by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the delay in turning over Rosario material was deliberate or that he was substantially prejudiced thereby (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940), not least because his attorney could have availed herself of materials at an opportune time (see, People v Witherspoon, 156 A.D.2d 306, 308-309, affd 77 N.Y.2d 95, cert denied sub nom. Carter v. New York, 499 U.S. 967). No reasonable view of the evidence supports defendant's contention that criminal possession in the seventh degree should have been submitted as a lesser included offense of criminal possession in the third degree (CPL 300.50; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61) and the court's failure to submit, sua sponte, unrequested lesser included offenses does not constitute error (CPL 300.50; People v. Handy, 123 A.D.2d 398). By both his conduct and statements, defendant manifested unambiguous defiance of the processes of law, and thereby forfeited his right to remain present through the conclusion of sentencing proceedings (People v. Burton, 168 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 876). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.