People v. Rosenblitt
| Decision Date | 15 November 1993 |
| Citation | 603 N.Y.S.2d 888,198 A.D.2d 382 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert ROSENBLITT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Roger Bennet Adler, P.C., New York City (Karen Bennett, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward J. Kuriansky, Deputy Atty. Gen., New York City (Arthur G. Weinstein and Donald H. Zuckerman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, COPERTINO and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered September 11, 1992, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
On appeal, the defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he intentionally aided the codefendants in committing Medicaid fraud. However, since the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion for a trial order of dismissal or in his motion to set aside the verdict, he has not preserved this issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247, 586 N.Y.S.2d 136). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at the trial 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the requisite intent and acted in concert with the codefendants to defraud the State through fraudulent Medicaid claims. Notably, the accomplices' testimony which incriminated the defendant was sufficiently corroborated (see, CPL 60.22[1]. 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].
The trial court did not err in failing to impose sanctions on the prosecution for the loss of Rosario material. The defendant contends that the trial court should have imposed sanctions on the prosecution for the loss of a cover page to a statement that a witness gave to the Attorney-General's office. It is unclear from the record whether the "missing" cover page existed. In any event, the record reveals that if the cover page had been produced, it would only have contained the conditions under which the statement was given. Therefore, since the cover page did not contain any statements attributable to a witness, it did not constitute Rosario material (see, 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; see also, CPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Young
...People v. Giuca, 58 A.D.3d 750, 751, 871 N.Y.S.2d 709 ; People v. Delphin, 26 A.D.3d 343, 343, 812 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; People v. Rosenblitt, 198 A.D.2d 382, 383, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888 ). The defendant's contention that his convictions of criminal contempt in the first degree under Penal Law § 215.51(......
-
People v. Ettleman
...on the law, since the prosecutor had previously stated that the Judge would instruct them on the law” ( People v. Rosenblitt, 198 A.D.2d 382, 383, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888,lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 902, 610 N.Y.S.2d 169, 632 N.E.2d 479;see People v. Delphin, 26 A.D.3d 343, 343, 812 N.Y.S.2d 552,lv. denie......
-
People v. Arnold
...instruct it on the law and the court admonished the prosecutor to avoid discussing the law in his summation (see, People v. Rosenblitt, 198 A.D.2d 382, 383, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Hart, 176 A.D.2d 148, 574 N.Y.S.2d 33). Moreover, in light of the trial court's charge to the jury that th......
- People v. Morton
-
Summation
...court, after admonishing the prosecutor to avoid discussing the law, correctly instructed the jurors on the law. People v. Rosenblitt , 198 A.D.2d 382, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888 (2d Dept. 1993). Error in the prosecution’s statement on the law during summation was harmless, and was cured when the pro......
-
Summation
...court, after admonishing the prosecutor to avoid discussing the law, correctly instructed the jurors on the law. People v. Rosenblitt , 198 A.D.2d 382, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888 (2d Dept. 1993). Error in the prosecution’s statement on the law during summation was harmless, and was cured when the pro......
-
Summation
...to avoid discussing the law, correctly instructed the jurors on the law. SUMMATION 19-21 Summation §19:110 People v. Rosenblitt , 198 A.D.2d 382, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888 (2d Dept. 1993). Error in the prosecution’s statement on the law during summation was harmless, and was cured when the prosecuto......
-
Summation
...court, after admonishing the prosecutor to avoid discussing the law, correctly instructed the jurors on the law. People v. Rosenblitt , 198 A.D.2d 382, 603 N.Y.S.2d 888 (2d Dept. 1993). Error in the prosecution’s statement on the law during summation was harmless, and was cured when the pro......