People v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brock

246 A.D.2d 406, 667 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 271

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 406 (People v. Brock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Brock, 246 A.D.2d 406, 667 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered March 8, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The lost or destroyed bank surveillance videotape and photographs did not constitute Brady material because there was no showing that they were exculpatory and because they never came into possession of the prosecution or police (see, People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375). In any event, their non-production would not warrant the sanction of dismissal of the indictment, since there was no showing of bad faith or that the videotape or still photographs would have been beneficial to defendant. Furthermore, the photographs did not constitute Rosario material (People v Quinones, 228 AD2d 796, 798).

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by a fleeting reference to his prior incarceration during the People’s cross-examination of a defense witness in view of the court’s appropriate curative action.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered March 8, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The lost or destroyed bank surveillance videotape and photographs did not constitute Brady material because there was no showing that they were exculpatory and because they never came into possession of the prosecution or police (see, People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375). In any event, their non-production would not warrant the sanction of dismissal of the indictment, since there was no showing of bad faith or that the videotape or still photographs would have been beneficial to defendant. Furthermore, the photographs did not constitute Rosario material (People v Quinones, 228 AD2d 796, 798).

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by a fleeting reference to his prior incarceration during the People’s cross-examination of a defense witness in view of the court’s appropriate curative action.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 406, 667 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brock-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack