PEOPLE v. HALL

Contrary to defendant's contention, the intent to commit robbery was adequately proven by circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of an eyewitness who observed the defendant take money from the victim (see, Matter of Juan J., 81 N.Y.2d 739, 741).

The People's police witness failed to produce a card containing notes concerning the victim, taken contemporaneously with the commission of the crime, the card having not been properly filed. The court was fully apprised of the Rosario claim at pretrial hearings, and it is therefore preserved (see, People v Morton, 189 A.D.2d 488, 492). The defendant did not, however, allege with particularity any negative impact on his ability to cross-examine (cf., People v Jarrells, 190 A.D.2d 120, 123-124), and did not raise the issue at all during the trial. Accordingly, defendant bears some significant responsibility for the court's failure to fashion any Rosario sanction (see, People v Rogelio, 160 A.D.2d 359, affd 79 N.Y.2d 843), and, in the circumstances presented reversal is not warranted.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.