People v. Leon

• Decision Date: 05 October 1992
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Victor LEON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 384

588 N.Y.S.2d 384

186 A.D.2d 587

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Victor LEON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Oct. 5, 1992.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Joseph O. Holmes and John Wirenius, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Eve Cary, Stacy Caplow, and Faith Crouchley, of counsel; Suzanne G. Treibitz and Melissa D. Epstein, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and HARWOOD, MILLER and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered August 15, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant testified that several days prior to the day of the chain-snatching incident, she had seen the defendant emerge from a boarded-up stairwell onto the elevated subway station platform, and she asked the defendant what he was doing in a closed stairwell. The defendant had responded that he had been urinating in the stairwell. On the day of the incident, she also had an opportunity to observe the defendant, and noticed that he had "black spots" on his face and was slightly taller than five feet three inches tall. A few days after the incident she, again, saw the defendant at the same subway station, and advised the detective who had been assigned to the case of that fact. She also confirmed the identity of the defendant as the robber before he was arrested. Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].

We also find that the delay in furnishing the defense counsel with a copy of the arresting officer's notes pertaining to his interview of the complainant did not prejudice the defendant. Where there has been a delay in furnishing the defendant with Rosario material, reversal is required only if the defense is substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011). The prosecution did not know of the existence of the subject notes until the arresting officer testified on cross-examination that he had made notes on the back of the original complaint form when he interviewed the complainant, and that he had submitted the form, which was then filed in the Statistics and Analysis section of the New York City Transit Police Department. The court immediately adjourned the trial and directed the People to ascertain whether the notes still existed. On the morning of the following court date, the People advised the court that they had indeed ascertained that the notes existed. They then immediately furnished the defense counsel with a copy of the notes. The arresting officer was still on the witness stand. The defense counsel cross-examined him as to the taking of the notes and whether the information provided by the complainant during the interview was different from...