Defendant's claim that the court should have delivered an accomplice corroboration charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that although such a charge should have been provided, its absence did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in view of the overwhelming evidence independent of the accomplice's testimony (see, People v. Polhill, 190 A.D.2d 692, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 975;People v. Pelc, 101 A.D.2d 995; compare, People v. Leon, 121 A.D.2d 1,lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830).
After conducting a sufficient inquiry of the prosecutor and a police witness, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to examine the officer's notes to determine whether they suggested that other notes had been prepared by the officer that were not turned over to the defense in violation of the Rosario rule (see, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144). Defendant offered only speculation as to the possible existence of missing notes (see, Matter of Michael R., 223 A.D.2d 465).
Defendant's possession of the weapons was complete prior to the shooting, and their subsequent use constituted a separate, successive act permitting the imposition of consecutive sentences (see, People v. Bryant, 92 N.Y.2d 216, 230-231; People v. Okafore, 72 N.Y.2d 81; People v. Simpson, 209 A.D.2d 281, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 866).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.