Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he did not understand his Miranda rights which were administered prior to the taking of his statement because they were not accurately translated into Spanish. Therefore, the defendant claims that the People failed to establish that he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights. However, the hearing court's finding to the contrary is supported by the evidence and this court should accord due deference to its determination (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Noren, 123 A.D.2d 453).
We find the trial court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to two police officers. There is no indication in the record that those officers' testimony would have added to or contradicted the testimony of the other witnesses (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 132-133; People v. Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751). Moreover, the record shows that at the time of trial, the officers were retired and their whereabouts were unknown. Thus, they were no longer under the People's control (see, People v Rodriguez, supra).
The trial court properly found that the police report which contained the complainant's statement did not qualify under the business record exception to the hearsay rule for admission in evidence (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261; Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117; People v. Wilson, 123 A.D.2d 457).
Finally, we find that the instances of prosecutorial misconduct alleged by the defendant, some of which are unpreserved, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v. Torres, 121 A.D.2d 663). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.