The court properly denied defendant's application for a missing witness charge concerning the "ghost" officer. The court properly found this request to be untimely, since it was made after the close of evidence and the record fails to support defendant's assertion that it was made "as soon as practicable" (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428). In addition, the request was properly denied on the ground that the People established that the ghost officer, who did not witness the sales transaction, could not provide material, non-cumulative testimony (id.). Assuming, arguendo , that the ghost officer was in a position to observe whether defendant entered a building with the undercover officer, the testimony would have been cumulative since there was nothing in the record to indicate that the ghost officer's testimony would have added to the undercover officer's testimony (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 133). Since the undercover officer's credibility was not impeached on cross-examination, corroboration of his testimony was not crucial (see, People v. Gonzalez, supra, at 430).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Motion seeking leave to dismiss indictment denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.