The motion to vacate was properly denied. The information regarding the complaining witness's prior arrest for a misdemeanor was unknown to the prosecution, and since the prosecution's lack of knowledge was the result of the witness's use of an alias and possession of two NYSID numbers, knowledge of the prior arrest should not be imputed to the prosecution ( see, People v. Clark, 228 A.D.2d 326, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 863; People v. Santiago, 138 A.D.2d 327, 329). In any event, had the underlying facts of the witness's relatively minor arrest (complaint dismissed) been disclosed, there was no reasonable possibility that a different verdict would have resulted ( see, People v. Quinones, 251 A.D.2d 270, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 929).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Saxe, JJ.