DECISION ORDER ON MOTION
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to a police detective to whom the defendant made a statement. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to request his charge, the request was untimely and thus, properly denied (see People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Catoe, 181 A.D.2d 905).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the determination as to whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v. Ventura, 35 N.Y.2d 654; People v. Aldridge, 247 A.D.2d 545; People v. Fama, 212 A.D.2d 542). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to reopen the case.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.