People v. Hurdle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hurdle

2017 NY Slip Op 2917, 149 A.D.3d 528, 50 N.Y.S.3d 264

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

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket3238 4250/74

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2917 (People v. Hurdle) 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. Hurdle, 2017 NY Slip Op 2917, 149 A.D.3d 528, 50 N.Y.S.3d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*529 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2013, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.30 (1-a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion was materially indistinguishable from a prior motion that was denied in an order affirmed by this Court (56 AD3d 317 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]). Although CPL 440.30 has been amended since defendant made the prior motion, the relevant standard for obtaining DNA testing has not changed. Further, defendant has presented no facts that were not before us on the prior appeal. Accordingly, there is no basis for departure from our previous determination that, since the crime was committed in such a manner that the absence of defendant’s DNA from any or all of the crime scene evidence at issue would not be exculpatory. There is no reasonable probability that DNA testing would have led to a verdict more favorable to defendant.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

*529 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2013, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.30 (1-a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion was materially indistinguishable from a prior motion that was denied in an order affirmed by this Court (56 AD3d 317 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]). Although CPL 440.30 has been amended since defendant made the prior motion, the relevant standard for obtaining DNA testing has not changed. Further, defendant has presented no facts that were not before us on the prior appeal. Accordingly, there is no basis for departure from our previous determination that, since the crime was committed in such a manner that the absence of defendant’s DNA from any or all of the crime scene evidence at issue would not be exculpatory. There is no reasonable probability that DNA testing would have led to a verdict more favorable to defendant.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2917, 149 A.D.3d 528, 50 N.Y.S.3d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hurdle-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack