Opinion
February 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence H. Bernstein, J.).
Evidence at trial was that defendant, as Chairman of Community School Board 12, unsuccessfully solicited $300 in cash from the complainant, a school guard employed in District 12, in exchange for job security. Although the complainant's testimony regarding approximate dates and exact words exchanged was brought into question on cross-examination, any discrepancies were reasonably attributable to his obvious difficulty with communication skills. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence, which was given appropriate weight (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
The hearing court properly denied defendant's CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The hearing testimony, at best, served merely to contradict or impeach testimony of the complainant at trial. However, given the complainant's undisputed difficulty with communication skills, it is doubtful that the hearing testimony in fact impeached the complainant. In any event, the hearing testimony was not of such character as to create a probability that had it been received at trial the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant (CPL 440.10 [g]; People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, cert denied 350 U.S. 950).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.