Opinion
April 10, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, we note our strong disapproval of the prosecutrix's failure, in violation of Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83), to disclose certain information she obtained during the course of the trial. Reversal is not required, however, because the defendant independently learned of the existence of this information at a time when he still had "a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People's witnesses or as evidence during his case (see, People v Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555, 559; People v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 41, 68; People v. Stridiron, 33 N.Y.2d 287, 292-293)" People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870).
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the judgment of conviction since the victim's unsworn testimony was sufficiently corroborated as required by CPL 60.20. As recently stated by the Court of Appeals, the corroboration requirement contained in CPL 60.20 is satisfied "by evidence tending to establish the crime[s] and connecting defendant with its commission" (People v. Groff, 71 N.Y.2d 101, 104). In this case, independent evidence of the crimes included testimony concerning the child's vaginal rash and discharge, indications of trauma and penetration, and the positive tests for two sexually transmitted diseases. Independent evidence connecting the defendant to the commission of the crimes included testimony establishing the defendant's opportunity to commit the crimes and the fact that the defendant tested positive for the same two venereal diseases. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.