People v. Batista

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Batista, 650 N.Y.S.2d 103, 233 A.D.2d 195 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 19 November 1996
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose BATISTA, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 103

650 N.Y.S.2d 103

233 A.D.2d 195

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose BATISTA, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Nov. 19, 1996.

Penny Rosenberg, for respondent.

Alice D. Keane, for defendant-appellant.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, WALLACH, RUBIN and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered July 26, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

It was proper to allow the arresting officer to testify that he arrested defendant "because there was a certain description" and defendant was wearing a jacket like "what the undercover described to us". Such testimony was admissible "to demonstrate the basis for the backup officer's appearance on the scene and arrest of the particular person described" (People v. Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, 548 N.Y.S.2d 448, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 964, 556 N.Y.S.2d 249, 555 N.E.2d 621) and "to provide a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated defendant's arrest" (People v. Hynes, 193 A.D.2d 516, 598 N.Y.S.2d 182, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 755, 603 N.Y.S.2d 997, 624 N.E.2d 183). The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the arresting officer with respect to the details of an unrelated arrest (see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 201-202, 93 N.E.2d 637).

The failure to make a "request [for] specific relief" concerning the prosecutor's failure to disclose documents renders defendant's Rosario claim unpreserved (People v. Rivera, 78 N.Y.2d 901, 573 N.Y.S.2d 453, 577 N.E.2d 1045; see also, People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843, 580 N.Y.S.2d 185, 588 N.E.2d 83). In any event, it cannot be ascertained from the record whether the documents at issue were "made by" (CPL 240.45[1][a] ) the witness in question, the arresting officer, and even assuming they were, the three documents which defendant did not receive did not relate to the subject matter of that officer's direct testimony (see, People v. Stern, 226 A.D.2d 238, 641 N.Y.S.2d 248, 251, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 969, 647 N.Y.S.2d 723, 670 N.E.2d 1355).