People v. Tran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tran

308 A.D.2d 497, 764 N.Y.S.2d 636

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 497 (People v. Tran) 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. Tran, 308 A.D.2d 497, 764 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered July 16, 2001, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated April 1, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) by failing to provide certain police reports is without merit. The subject police reports did not constitute Brady material, as the defendant was aware of the facts set forth in the police reports (see People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, 499 [1987]). Further, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the police reports constituted newly-discovered evidence, as such evidence was merely cumulative and only served to bolster the testimony of the defendant at the trial (see People v Latella, 112 AD2d 321, 323 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250, 250 [1989]), and, in any event, are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered July 16, 2001, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated April 1, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) by failing to provide certain police reports is without merit. The subject police reports did not constitute Brady material, as the defendant was aware of the facts set forth in the police reports (see People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, 499 [1987]). Further, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the police reports constituted newly-discovered evidence, as such evidence was merely cumulative and only served to bolster the testimony of the defendant at the trial (see People v Latella, 112 AD2d 321, 323 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250, 250 [1989]), and, in any event, are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 497, 764 N.Y.S.2d 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tran-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack