The People, etc., respondent, v. Steven Tieman, appellant.
Submitted—June 10, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered December 5, 2011, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree, driving while ability impaired by alcohol in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, resisting arrest, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree (two counts), and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and evidence of the defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the People failed to disclose certain Rosario material (see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286), is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05  ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. There is no evidence in the record that the material in question, state police radio logs pertaining to the subject incident, actually existed (see People v. Young, 61 AD3d 786, 786; People v. Pines, 298 A.D.2d 179, 180; see also People v. Smith, 33 AD3d 462, 464; People v. Melendez, 259 A.D.2d 500; People v. Ray, 224 A.D.2d 722).
The People correctly concede that the defendant's medical records were improperly redacted to omit the results of the defendant's blood alcohol test (see CPLR 4518[c]; Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 A.D.2d 769). However, the error was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant's guilt of driving while ability impaired by alcohol was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction of that offense (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the imposition of consecutive sentences was not illegal (see Penal Law § 70.25 ). The defendant's act of possessing a controlled substance in the vehicle was a complete crime, and a separate and distinct act from the other offenses of which he was convicted (see People v. Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809, 811; People v. Salamone, 89 AD3d 961, 962–963; People v. Gucla, 18 AD3d 478, 479; People v. Samwell, 287 A.D.2d 663, 663–664). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.
Clerk of the Court