People v. Melendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melendez

259 A.D.2d 500, 684 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 30, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People’s failure to produce an audiotape claimed to contain a pretrial interview [501]*501of a trial witness did not constitute a Rosario violation, as there was no indication that the interview was successfully recorded (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866; People v Ray, 224 AD2d 722; People v Perez, 209 AD2d 643; People v Barnes, 200 AD2d 751; People v Dudley, 156 AD2d 581; People v Littles, 192 AD2d 314).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 30, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People’s failure to produce an audiotape claimed to contain a pretrial interview [501]*501of a trial witness did not constitute a Rosario violation, as there was no indication that the interview was successfully recorded (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866; People v Ray, 224 AD2d 722; People v Perez, 209 AD2d 643; People v Barnes, 200 AD2d 751; People v Dudley, 156 AD2d 581; People v Littles, 192 AD2d 314).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Melendez, 259 A.D.2d 500, 684 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Melendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related