People v. Tardugno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tardugno

124 A.D.2d 1062, 508 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62424

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1062 (People v. Tardugno) 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. Tardugno, 124 A.D.2d 1062, 508 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: During the trial the People attempted to introduce into evidence property receipts which were attached to the contraband (cocaine) which was the subject of this charge. Defendant objected to their admission upon the grounds that the receipts were Rosario material that should have been provided to the defense prior to the commencement of the trial. Although the court refused to receive the receipts into evidence upon the grounds that they contained hearsay statements, defendant nevertheless argues that the prosecution’s failure to provide them to defendant constituted a violation of CPL 240.45.

While it is questionable whether the information contained in the receipts is Rosario material, it is not necessary to make such determination as the information contained thereon had previously been provided to defendant’s counsel through Grand Jury testimony and the special reports of Investigators Yacco and Tartaglia. The prosecution’s failure to turn over such information in another form was not error as it would have been cumulative only (People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 454, cert denied 433 US 914; People v Jones, 91 AD2d 1175, 1176, affd on resubmission 96 AD2d 1147; People v Thomas, 65 AD2d 933, 934).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Darrigrand, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Memorandum: During the trial the People attempted to introduce into evidence property receipts which were attached to the contraband (cocaine) which was the subject of this charge. Defendant objected to their admission upon the grounds that the receipts were Rosario material that should have been provided to the defense prior to the commencement of the trial. Although the court refused to receive the receipts into evidence upon the grounds that they contained hearsay statements, defendant nevertheless argues that the prosecution’s failure to provide them to defendant constituted a violation of CPL 240.45.

While it is questionable whether the information contained in the receipts is Rosario material, it is not necessary to make such determination as the information contained thereon had previously been provided to defendant’s counsel through Grand Jury testimony and the special reports of Investigators Yacco and Tartaglia. The prosecution’s failure to turn over such information in another form was not error as it would have been cumulative only (People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 454, cert denied 433 US 914; People v Jones, 91 AD2d 1175, 1176, affd on resubmission 96 AD2d 1147; People v Thomas, 65 AD2d 933, 934).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Darrigrand, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1062, 508 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tardugno-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack