ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that he is entitled to a de novo suppression hearing because of the People's delay in providing certain Rosario material (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). We disagree. Where, as here, there is a delay in providing Rosario material at a suppression hearing, the defendant is entitled to a de novo hearing only where there has been a showing of substantial prejudice (see, People v. Cannon, 171 A.D.2d 752; see also, People v. Antelmi, 187 A.D.2d 601). The defendant has failed to show the existence of substantial prejudice here.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.