DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his judgment of conviction should be reversed based upon the late disclosure of Brady material (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83). The record demonstrates that the material at issue was turned over to the defendant well before opening statements and in sufficient time for him to use it in a meaningful fashion during the cross-examination of the People's witnesses or as evidence during his case. The defendant's attorney had an opportunity to interview the only witness who actually observed the perpetrators as they fled from the jewelry store after shots were fired. The defendant elected not to call him as a witness. Additionally, the Supreme Court permitted liberal cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses on the issue of identifications made by others. Thus, the prosecution's late disclosure of Brady material did not deprive the defendant of an opportunity to prepare a defense (see People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870; People v. Hoover, 248 A.D.2d 728).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 981; People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777; People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453; People v. Gonzalez, 199 A.D.2d 412; People v. Sandy, 187 A.D.2d 466; People v. Craig, 155 A.D.2d 550; People v. Dinkins, 139 A.D.2d 759).
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.