Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a de novo suppression hearing, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court is to file its report with all convenient speed.
Before the Mapp hearing commenced, counsel for the defendant made a request for Rosario material. At the Mapp hearing, the sole witness for the People was the arresting police officer who testified that he observed "a gun sticking from [the defendant's] waistband". However, in the "District Attorney Data Analysis Form" used by an Assistant District Attorney to question the arresting police officer, the entry is devoid of any observance by the officer of a gun in the defendant's waistband and, instead, states that the officer "observes defendant motioning as if he is tucking something in waistband".
The People concede that the failure to turn over its data analysis sheet is a violation of the Rosario rule and requires that a new hearing be held (see, People v Wright, 135 A.D.2d 594). We find that the defendant was denied the use of this document to impeach the officer on this crucial evidence leading to his arrest, and a de novo Mapp hearing is required (see, CPL 240.44; People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56; People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86; People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.