PEOPLE v. GONCALVES (1997)

 Defendant's contention that Rosario violations require reversal is without merit.   Reversal based upon the People's delay in disclosing Rosario material is necessary only when defendant demonstrates that he has been substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134;  People v. Watson, 213 A.D.2d 996, 997, 624 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 804, 632 N.Y.S.2d 518, 656 N.E.2d 617;  People v. Brantley, 186 A.D.2d 1036, 1037, 588 N.Y.S.2d 475, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 785, 594 N.Y.S.2d 731, 610 N.E.2d 404).   We conclude that defendant failed to establish that he was substantially prejudiced.   He received all of the information he requested in his discovery demands prior to opening statements (see, People v. White, 211 A.D.2d 982, 985, 621 N.Y.S.2d 728, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 944, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 651 N.E.2d 931;  People v. Smith, 190 A.D.2d 1022, 593 N.Y.S.2d 645, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 976, 598 N.Y.S.2d 778, 615 N.E.2d 235).

 We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct.   The prosecutor's references to defendant's trial strategy as a “smoke screen” do “not constitute such a pervasive pattern of misconduct that reversal is warranted” (People v. Tidwell, 207 A.D.2d 957, 617 N.Y.S.2d 76, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1039, 623 N.Y.S.2d 196, 647 N.E.2d 468;  see, People v. Colon, 172 A.D.2d 173, 175, 568 N.Y.S.2d 358, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 998, 575 N.Y.S.2d 268, 580 N.E.2d 754;  see generally, People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 465 N.Y.S.2d 307).

Defendant's further contention that County Court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness regarding the fair market value of the stolen stereo equipment is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Cielock, 217 A.D.2d 1001, 1002, 629 N.Y.S.2d 918, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 841, 634 N.Y.S.2d 450, 658 N.E.2d 228).

Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: