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

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Melendez) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 500, 684 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melendez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack