People v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maddox

265 A.D.2d 853, 696 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 853 (People v. Maddox) 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. Maddox, 265 A.D.2d 853, 696 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to a remittitur order of this Court, Supreme Court conducted a hearing to determine the contents of notes taken by a police officer who participated in a “buy and bust” operation but who did not testify at trial and to determine whether those notes were lost, destroyed or still in the possession of the People (People v Maddox, 256 AD2d 1066). That officer was the sole witness at the hearing and testified that he made no notes. The court, crediting the officer’s testimony, determined that there were no notes, and thus no Rosario violation. There is no basis for this Court to disturb that determination (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to a remittitur order of this Court, Supreme Court conducted a hearing to determine the contents of notes taken by a police officer who participated in a “buy and bust” operation but who did not testify at trial and to determine whether those notes were lost, destroyed or still in the possession of the People (People v Maddox, 256 AD2d 1066). That officer was the sole witness at the hearing and testified that he made no notes. The court, crediting the officer’s testimony, determined that there were no notes, and thus no Rosario violation. There is no basis for this Court to disturb that determination (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 853, 696 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maddox-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack