People v. Christiano

• Docket Number: 110838
• Decision Date: 20 October 2022
• Citation: 209 A.D.3d 1110,176 N.Y.S.3d 350
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard A. CHRISTIANO Jr., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

209 A.D.3d 1110
176 N.Y.S.3d 350

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Richard A. CHRISTIANO Jr., Appellant.

110838

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 7, 2022
Decided and Entered: October 20, 2022

Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), for appellant.

Karen A. Heggen, Special Prosecutor, Ballston Spa (John B. Latella III of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.P.

176 N.Y.S.3d 351

209 A.D.3d 1110

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Polly A. Hoye, J.), rendered June 14, 2018, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts).

In 2011, a police officer, who worked on a part-time basis for the Galway Police Department, sold an interest in a gun store to defendant. After defendant failed to meet his ownership obligations, the officer repossessed the store and took steps to auction the inventory therein. During this process, it was discovered that defendant had removed guns from the store and sold them. In connection therewith, defendant was charged by indictment with multiple crimes. In January 2018, a jury trial was held, in which the officer was one of the People's witnesses. Following the trial's conclusion, defendant was convicted of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict under CPL 330.30, and County Court denied the motion. Defendant thereafter sought to renew his motion on the basis that the officer, in April 2018, had been charged with multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. The court permitted defendant to renew his motion but nonetheless denied it. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to concurrent terms of five years of probation. Defendant appeals.

Turning first to the Brady violation claim, defendant contends that the People failed to disclose evidence of the officer's submission of fraudulent records to the Galway Police Department. Defendant, however, mischaracterizes the evidence known to County Court at the time it made its Brady ruling. The record reflects that, approximately one week prior to the start of trial, the People submitted a letter addressed to County Court and copied to defense counsel advising them that the Attorney General was in the midst of an investigation of

209 A.D.3d 1111

the Galway Police Department, among other police departments, and that the officer had been interviewed as part of that investigation. After the trial commenced and before the officer was called as a witness, the prosecutor provided additional information that the officer became accredited as a field training officer and that the certificate for such accreditation reflected that the officer underwent a certain number of training hours.¹ The prosecutor, however, further advised that, due to the small number of enrollees in the officer's training class, the officer completed less hours of training than what was reflected in the certificate. The prosecutor noted that the officer represented to her that he did not modify or forge the certificate. Although the officer was eventually charged in a felony complaint with three counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree stemming from the discrepancy in the training hours that were certified and the training hours that the...