Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The failure of the prosecution to turn over documents entitled "Complaint Follow Up Reports" to the defense was not a Rosario violation (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 886). While the reports contained statements of witnesses to the robbery, none of those witnesses testified at trial, and the subject matter of the reports was unrelated to any testimony given by the officer who made the reports (see, CPL 240.45 [a]; People v Barrios, 163 A.D.2d 579; People v Melendez, 149 A.D.2d 918, 919). Nor did the failure to turn over the reports constitute a Brady violation (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83), since the defendant already had knowledge of the information contained therein (see, People v Banks, 130 A.D.2d 498, 499).
Further, the prosecution's failure to turn over the sprint tape of the emergency telephone "911" call by the eyewitness was not a Rosario violation. There was no evidence of bad faith by the prosecution, and the sprint sheet, which was the "duplicative equivalent" of the tape, was furnished to the defense (see, People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 454, cert denied 433 U.S. 914; People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63; People v Winthrop, 171 A.D.2d 829; People v Velez, 161 A.D.2d 823; People v Figueroa, 156 A.D.2d 322, 323).
We also find that a missing witness charge was unnecessary under the circumstances (see, People v Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894, 896; People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427; People v Chisom, 170 A.D.2d 523), and that the trial court's charge, as a whole, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Crawford, 158 A.D.2d 706; People v Bowen, 134 A.D.2d 356; see also, People v McGee, 76 N.Y.2d 764, 766). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.