ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to reopen the Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218) based upon the People's failure to timely disclose the Grand Jury testimony of the complainant regarding a lineup identification (see People v. Clark, 88 N.Y.2d 552; People v. Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555, cert denied 479 U.S. 1093; CPL 710.40). We disagree with the defendant's contention that this testimony constituted Brady material (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 33). Even assuming that the testimony was Brady material, the failure to timely disclose does not warrant reversal since the testimony was disclosed during the jury voir dire, and the defendant had use of it for cross-examination purposes (see People v. Brown, supra; People v. Ahmed, 244 A.D.2d 415).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.