People v. Plunkett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Plunkett

140 A.D.2d 553, 528 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452

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

DecidedMay 16, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 553 (People v. Plunkett) 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. Plunkett, 140 A.D.2d 553, 528 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The record fails to substantiate the People’s contention that prior to the trial the defendant was furnished with a written statement made by a codefendant to the police. Contrary to the People’s contention, a review of the original Supreme Court file indicates that the statement in question was not [554]*554annexed to their answer to the defendant’s omnibus motion, which was filed with the Supreme Court.

However, under the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that no substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced by any delay in producing this Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, rearg denied 9 NY2d 908, cert denied 368 US 866, rearg denied 14 NY2d 876, rearg denied 15 NY2d 765). The statement was made available to the defendant’s counsel at the trial in time for its effective presentation for the jury’s consideration, if he was so advised (see, People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154, 159-160; cf., People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63).

The defendant’s other claim of error is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

The record fails to substantiate the People’s contention that prior to the trial the defendant was furnished with a written statement made by a codefendant to the police. Contrary to the People’s contention, a review of the original Supreme Court file indicates that the statement in question was not [554]*554annexed to their answer to the defendant’s omnibus motion, which was filed with the Supreme Court.

However, under the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that no substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced by any delay in producing this Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, rearg denied 9 NY2d 908, cert denied 368 US 866, rearg denied 14 NY2d 876, rearg denied 15 NY2d 765). The statement was made available to the defendant’s counsel at the trial in time for its effective presentation for the jury’s consideration, if he was so advised (see, People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154, 159-160; cf., People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63).

The defendant’s other claim of error is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 553, 528 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-plunkett-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack