People v. Defina

Citation256 A.D.2d 587,685 N.Y.S.2d 249
Parties1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,560 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony DEFINA, Appellant.
Decision Date28 December 1998
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Kathryn E. Leighton, Long Beach, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., JOHN COPERTINO, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated January 23, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the People's failure to turn over message number 5 on a "Sprint Tape", was a violation of People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64, since the message contained statements made by prosecution witnesses. Contrary to the defendant's contention, to the extent that message number 5 contained a statement by a prosecution witness relaying information told to him by an anonymous person, it did not constitute Rosario material. The right to inspect statements of a prosecution witness is limited to those statements relevant to the subject matter of the witness's testimony (see, People v. Rios, 182 A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798; see also, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697). As no testimony concerning the anonymous person was elicited during the direct examination of the prosecution witnesses, the People were not obligated to make that portion of message number 5 available to the defendant (see, People v. Rios, supra; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Melendez, 178 A.D.2d 366, 577 N.Y.S.2d 815; People v. Goldman, 175 A.D.2d 723, 573 N.Y.S.2d 282; cf., People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 490 N.Y.S.2d 747, 480 N.E.2d 361).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or, to the extent that they relate to any actual error, do not warrant reversal.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rudenko v Costello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 20 Marzo 2002
    ...on the judgment of conviction is without merit for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division. People v. DeFina, ___ A.D.2d ___, 685 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2d Dep't 1998). DeFina v. Albaugh, 99 Civ. 5064 (E.D.N.Y. dated Oct. 27, 1999, filed Nov. 1, 1999) ("DeFina v. 3. The Petitions......
  • Rudenko v. Costello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 20 Marzo 2002
    ...on the judgment of conviction is without merit for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division. People v. DeFina, 256 A.D.2d 587, 685 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2d Dep't 1998). DeFina v. Albaugh, 99 Civ. 5064 (E.D.N.Y. dated Oct. 27, 1999, filed Nov. 1, 1999) ("DeFina v. 3. The Petitions......
  • People v. Defina
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Junio 1999
    ...54 695 N.Y.S.2d 54 93 N.Y.2d 969, 716 N.E.2d 1099 People v. Anthony Defina Court of Appeals of New York June 25, 1999 Kaye, C.J. 256 A.D.2d 587, 685 N.Y.S.2d 249 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT