Opinion
June 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the verdict without a hearing. The so-called "newly-discovered evidence" consisted principally of a recantation by the People's main witnesses. In order to constitute newly-discovered evidence warranting a new trial, the proffered evidence must, inter alia, do more than merely impeach or contradict the former evidence (see, People v Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v Legette, 153 A.D.2d 760, 761). Moreover, it has also been observed that recantation evidence is inherently unreliable and is insufficient alone to require setting aside a conviction (see, People v. Legette, supra; People v. Brown, 126 A.D.2d 898, 900; People v. Allison, 119 A.D.2d 1005). Guided by the foregoing principles, neither the recantation evidence nor the other evidence proffered by the defendant in support of the motion justified setting aside the defendant's judgment of conviction.
Moreover, we find that no Brady violation occurred with respect to the defendant (see, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682; People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 33; People v. Alongi, 131 A.D.2d 767, 768).
Finally, the defendant's sentence was proper (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.