Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial court's responses to the notes submitted by the jury were appropriate, meaningful and in no way coercive (CPL 310.30; see, People v Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131-132). Rather, the supplemental charge was neutral and reminded all the members of the jury of their duty to deliberate, to listen to each other's views and, if they still believed in their position, to adhere to it (see, People v Mack, 156 A.D.2d 158, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 870). Further, after the supplemental charge was provided, the jury continued to deliberate for almost two days before returning with its verdict (supra). Although the trial court should have augmented its charge by stating that reasonable doubt could arise from a lack of evidence as well as from the evidence presented, any error in this regard was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (People v Roldos, 161 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864; People v Medina, 171 A.D.2d 559, 560, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 924).
Although it was error to admit the document from the Department of Correction to contradict defendant's testimony on the collateral issue of his drug use, this error was also harmless (People v Coltrain, 202 A.D.2d 181, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 909).
As defendant concedes, this Court has already rejected the argument that the failure to turn over documents and audiotapes in the possession of the Medical Examiner's Office constitutes a Rosario violation, and we decline to reconsider our position (People v Smith, 206 A.D.2d 102; People v Nova, 206 A.D.2d 132).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it meritless.
Concur — Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
Rosenberger, J.P., and Kupferman, J., concur in the result only in a memorandum by Kupferman, J., as follows:
See my concurrences in People v Ford ( 211 A.D.2d 438, 439) and People v Gonzalez ( 214 A.D.2d 308, 309 [decided herewith]).