The prosecution's failure to disclose to defendant the criminal history of an ancillary witness, in violation of CPL 240.45 (1) (b), did not constitute a Rosario violation (People v Clark, 194 A.D.2d 868, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 752) and, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, any error was harmless (People v Welch, 154 A.D.2d 946). The prosecutor was not informed until after the trial that a member of her staff had previously received the criminal record of the witness. Defendant's contention regarding the court's failure to give, sua sponte, an instruction regarding consciousness of guilt, is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v Smith, 191 A.D.2d 284, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1020), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the omission of such an instruction would not warrant reversal since the evidence regarding defendant's flight and his conflicting reasons for his presence in the building was not, as defendant argues, the "linchpin" of the People's case, and the prosecutor did not overemphasize such evidence in her summation (People v Rosa, 176 A.D.2d 187, 188, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 831).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.