Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Fishman

People v. Fishman

528 N.E.2d 1212, 72 N.Y.2d 884, 532 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1648
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 30, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 528 N.E.2d 1212 (People v. Fishman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Fishman, 528 N.E.2d 1212, 72 N.Y.2d 884, 532 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1648 (N.Y. 1988).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and conspiracy for his involvement in an unsuccessful plot to kill his wife. Defendant agreed to pay Jose Lopez and Fernando Castro $25,000 to kill her and on August 13, 1985, pursuant to that agreement, Lopez shot her several times.

On March 7, 1986, two weeks before commencement of defendant’s trial, Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy for his involvement in the murder plot. On March 26, 1986, he was called as a prosecution witness at defendant’s trial; at that time, defense counsel requested production of Castro’s plea proceeding minutes, claiming that they constituted Rosario material. The prosecutor responded that he had ordered the minutes from the court stenographer, but had not received them, and that the minutes were a matter of public record. The trial court denied defense counsel’s request, ruling that the plea minutes, which counsel could obtain at any time, were not Rosario material. On appeal, defendant renews his [886]*886argument that the minutes constituted Rosario material which the People were obligated to produce. We disagree.

The Rosario rule has no application in the circumstances of this case, where untranscribed plea minutes of a potential prosecution witness have been ordered but not received by the prosecution. Having had no immediate access of their own to the statements (contrast, People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 64), the People cannot be held responsible for a failure to turn them over to defendant.

We cannot agree with the new, boundless reading of CPL 240.45 proposed by the dissent; nothing in the legislative history points to such a legislative intention. As for the dissent’s views regarding "sandbagging” (dissent, at 888), the focus of this appeal is Rosario; during the colloquy before the trial court — when defendant preserved his objection for our review — not even defendant made the arguments now suggested by the dissent as a basis for reversing this conviction.

To the extent they have been preserved, defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

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

Related

People v. Meyers
2020 NY Slip Op 2419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. West
283 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Rutledge
179 Misc. 2d 497 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. Oglesby
177 Misc. 2d 580 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. LaSalle
243 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Peralta
225 A.D.2d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Kelly
666 N.E.2d 1348 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
People v. Washington
654 N.E.2d 967 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. White
210 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Brown
209 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Kelly
209 A.D.2d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Ramos
201 A.D.2d 78 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Washington
196 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. France
159 Misc. 2d 869 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
People v. Farrell
159 Misc. 2d 992 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
County of Nassau v. Sullivan
194 A.D.2d 236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Railey
159 Misc. 2d 393 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
In re Carlos V.
192 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. McIntosh
157 Misc. 2d 551 (New York County Courts, 1993)
People v. Anonymous
154 Misc. 2d 963 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
528 N.E.2d 1212, 72 N.Y.2d 884, 532 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fishman-ny-1988.