People v. Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harden

188 A.D.2d 426, 592 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14730

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 426 (People v. Harden) 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. Harden, 188 A.D.2d 426, 592 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), entered January 8, 1991, granting defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his July 20, 1979 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first, second and third degrees, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.10.

In vacating the judgment of conviction, which this Court had previously affirmed (81 AD2d 1045, lv denied 54 NY2d 685), based on defendant’s claim of a Rosario violation, the trial court applied an erroneous standard, that is, that the People’s failure to turn over the material in question at trial was not subject to harmless error analysis. As the Court of Appeals has now held, a defendant who has exhausted his direct appeal and raises a Rosario claim by a CPL 440.10 motion is required to make an actual showing of prejudice as a result of the People’s failure to turn over the Rosario material (People v Bin Wahad, 79 NY2d 787). Thus, it was error to apply an error per se standard in deciding defendant’s [427]*427CPL 440.10 motion. We remand for a hearing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), entered January 8, 1991, granting defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his July 20, 1979 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first, second and third degrees, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.10.

In vacating the judgment of conviction, which this Court had previously affirmed (81 AD2d 1045, lv denied 54 NY2d 685), based on defendant’s claim of a Rosario violation, the trial court applied an erroneous standard, that is, that the People’s failure to turn over the material in question at trial was not subject to harmless error analysis. As the Court of Appeals has now held, a defendant who has exhausted his direct appeal and raises a Rosario claim by a CPL 440.10 motion is required to make an actual showing of prejudice as a result of the People’s failure to turn over the Rosario material (People v Bin Wahad, 79 NY2d 787). Thus, it was error to apply an error per se standard in deciding defendant’s [427]*427CPL 440.10 motion. We remand for a hearing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 426, 592 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harden-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack