From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1998
246 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).


The lost or destroyed bank surveillance videotape and photographs did not constitute Brady material because there was no showing that they were exculpatory and because they never came into possession of the prosecution or police ( see, People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375). In any event, their non-production would not warrant the sanction of dismissal of the indictment, since there was no showing of bad faith or that the videotape or still photographs would have been beneficial to defendant. Furthermore, the photographs did not constitute Rosario material ( People v. Quinones, 228 A.D.2d 796, 798).

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by a fleeting reference to his prior incarceration during the People's cross-examination of a defense witness in view of the court's appropriate curative action.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1998
246 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Brock

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL BROCK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 730

Citing Cases

Brock v. Artuz

On March 8, 1995, the court denied Brock's motion (A 930-73: Sentencing Tr. at A 957), and sentenced Brock,…

People v. Williams

Here, there was no testimony sufficient to establish what part, if any, of the altercation was recorded on…