The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's guilt was established by overwhelming evidence that he exercised dominion and control of the contraband recovered from his apartment, in his presence.
We reject defendant's claim that the court failed to properly and sufficiently address four Rosario claims. We agree with the court that two of the statements did not constitute Rosario material. In another instance, defendant received the remedy that he requested and, in the final instance, he chose not to make a sufficient record and sought no sanction. Defendant's request for a missing witness charge, not made until both sides presented their evidence and rested, was untimely. In addition, all but one of the police officers in question had been in defendant's apartment briefly and the officer who had remained with the testifying officer could merely have been expected to provide cumulative testimony ( People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427; compare, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.