In People v. Chess (149 Misc 2d 430 [Kensington Just Ct 1991]) both the accusatory instrument and the supporting deposition failed to advise the defendant that the prosecution intended to admit radar evidence. The Chess court found that a defendant should be informed of the manner in which the prosecution intends to establish speed because "this is necessary to permit the defendant to prepare to meet the proof to be presented by the People and subpoena appropriate records if he be so inclined (People v. Russo, 149 AD2d 255, 545 NYS2d 211 [2d Dept 1989])" (149 Misc 2d at 433). In Russo, the Appellate Division held that "if the People rely upon radar evidence to establish the alleged excessive speed of the defendant's vehicle, then the defendant will be entitled to receive those records, if any, which document the maintenance and testing of the radar device" (149 AD2d at 262). While such records were not available to the defendant through pretrial discovery, the Russo court held that the defendant could subpoena such records on the conditions more particularly set forth in its decision. The Chess court held that "it would be extremely unfair and violative of due process for a defendant in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding to be required to proceed to trial completely in the dark" (149 Misc 2d at 433). By failing to disclose the very manner in which the prosecution intended to establish the defendant's speed, the prosecution had effectively left the defendant "completely in the dark," and the Chess court precluded the People from presenting radar evidence at trial.