Our previous memorandum order on this appeal is hereby superceded. Upon reargument, we are persuaded that certain statements by a member of the District Attorney's office to a prosecution witness indicating that a decision on his part to testify for the prosecution would be instrumental in their working out a "favorable disposition" on pending charges constituted a promise which served as a quid pro quo for the witness' cooperation. In this situation, the prosecution's failure to disclose the statements to the defense and its permitting the witness to testify that no promises were made was improper (People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490, 497; People v. Lewis, 174 A.D.2d 294). Under the circumstances of this case, reversal is therefore required.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.