People v. Kimbrough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kimbrough

112 A.D.2d 31, 491 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50667

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 31 (People v. Kimbrough) 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. Kimbrough, 112 A.D.2d 31, 491 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The alleged instances of ineffective assistance of counsel cited by defendant involve trial strategy, and it appears from our review of the record that defendant received meaningful representation by his counsel at the trial and at the pretrial hearings (see, People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see also, Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, reh denied — US —, 104 S Ct 3562). Moreover, the prosecutor’s failure to release Rosario material (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866), as required under CPL 240.45, constituted harmless error since the police report in question was essentially duplicative of material already in defendant’s possession (see, People v Payne, 52 NY2d 743, 745). We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The alleged instances of ineffective assistance of counsel cited by defendant involve trial strategy, and it appears from our review of the record that defendant received meaningful representation by his counsel at the trial and at the pretrial hearings (see, People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see also, Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, reh denied — US —, 104 S Ct 3562). Moreover, the prosecutor’s failure to release Rosario material (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866), as required under CPL 240.45, constituted harmless error since the police report in question was essentially duplicative of material already in defendant’s possession (see, People v Payne, 52 NY2d 743, 745). We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 31, 491 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kimbrough-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack