People v. Maiolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maiolo

140 A.D.2d 971, 529 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5833

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

DecidedMay 27, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Maiolo) 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. Maiolo, 140 A.D.2d 971, 529 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree, following a jury trial, for conspiring to murder an acquaintance who testified against him in a prior trial. Defendant’s primary claim is that reversal is required because the prosecution violated the Rosario rule (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866) by not disclosing notes allegedly made by a key prosecution witness (see, People [972]*972v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 553; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63-64). Since this issue was raised by defendant for the first time in his brief on appeal and since there is no factual support in the record for such a claim, we need not address it (see, People v Hicks, 287 NY 165, 174; People v Palmer, 137 AD2d 881; cf., People v Jones, 91 AD2d 1175, 1176). Defendant may pursue the claim in a CPL article 440 motion if so advised. We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that each one lacks merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Darrigrand, J. — conspiracy, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree, following a jury trial, for conspiring to murder an acquaintance who testified against him in a prior trial. Defendant’s primary claim is that reversal is required because the prosecution violated the Rosario rule (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866) by not disclosing notes allegedly made by a key prosecution witness (see, People [972]*972v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 553; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63-64). Since this issue was raised by defendant for the first time in his brief on appeal and since there is no factual support in the record for such a claim, we need not address it (see, People v Hicks, 287 NY 165, 174; People v Palmer, 137 AD2d 881; cf., People v Jones, 91 AD2d 1175, 1176). Defendant may pursue the claim in a CPL article 440 motion if so advised. We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that each one lacks merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Darrigrand, J. — conspiracy, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 971, 529 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maiolo-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack