People v. Joseph

• Decision Date: 06 June 1994
• Citation: 205 A.D.2d 555,613 N.Y.S.2d 52
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lesly JOSEPH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 52

613 N.Y.S.2d 52

205 A.D.2d 555

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lesly JOSEPH, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 6, 1994.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Michael Taglieri, of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, (Steven J. Chananie, Jay L. Weiner, and Michael D. Manuelian, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, PIZZUTO and HART, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered July 30, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The information contained on the destroyed security envelopes prepared by the arresting officer were the "duplicative equivalent" of that contained in the on-line booking and complaint reports also prepared by the officer and turned over to the defendant prior to trial, and therefore "the defendant in effect suffered no deprivation at all" (People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610, 617, 593 N.Y.S.2d 491, 608 N.E.2d 1069; see, People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217, 587 N.Y.S.2d 747; People v. Winthrop, 171 A.D.2d 829, 567 N.Y.S.2d 531; People v. Greany, 185 A.D.2d 376, 377-378, 585 N.Y.S.2d 805). In any event, the information contained on the lost material was only the name of the suspects, and the location and time of the arrests, which information was not disputed by the defendant and which was not relevant to the issue of whether the defendant was the individual who the surveilling officer observed selling cocaine (cf., People v. Rivas, 184 A.D.2d 794, 585 N.Y.S.2d 506).

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit.