People v. Letizia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Letizia

159 A.D.2d 1010, 552 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3332

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 1010 (People v. Letizia) 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. Letizia, 159 A.D.2d 1010, 552 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously af[1011]*1011firmed. Memorandum: The statement that the victim gave to the Crime Victims Compensation Board was not Rosario material (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People u Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) because the transcript of the testimony was not in the possession or control of the prosecution (see, People v Reedy, 70 NY2d 826, 827; see also, People v Bailey, 73 NY2d 812, 813; People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75).

The testimony of the victim’s uncle that the victim told him that defendant had participated in the assault was admissible to refute the inference created by defense counsel that the victim did not make a prompt complaint against defendant (see, People v Alex, 260 NY 425, 428-429).

We have reviewed the other issues raised in defendant’s brief and in his supplemental pro se brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — attempted murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously af[1011]*1011firmed. Memorandum: The statement that the victim gave to the Crime Victims Compensation Board was not Rosario material (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People u Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) because the transcript of the testimony was not in the possession or control of the prosecution (see, People v Reedy, 70 NY2d 826, 827; see also, People v Bailey, 73 NY2d 812, 813; People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75).

The testimony of the victim’s uncle that the victim told him that defendant had participated in the assault was admissible to refute the inference created by defense counsel that the victim did not make a prompt complaint against defendant (see, People v Alex, 260 NY 425, 428-429).

We have reviewed the other issues raised in defendant’s brief and in his supplemental pro se brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — attempted murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 1010, 552 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-letizia-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack