Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.).
The record amply supports the court's determination that defendant was not an incapacitated person. The hearing court, whose evaluation of expert testimony and lengthy observation of defendant are entitled to substantial deference (People v Robustelli, 189 A.D.2d 668, 672, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 975), properly accepted the conclusions of the psychiatrist who evaluated defendant at great length in a hospital setting. Defendant's irrational refusal to cooperate with his attorney at various stages of the proceedings (see, 148 Misc.2d 738) did not establish incompetency to stand trial (see, People v Sullivan, 48 A.D.2d 398, 400, affd 39 N.Y.2d 903).
The competency hearing was not procedurally defective. The initial examination by two psychiatrists complied with the requirements of CPL 730.20 (1), and the hearing court, after honoring defendant's right to call an expert witness at the hearing, had discretion to deny, on grounds of unreasonable delay, examination by yet another expert (see, People v Christopher, 65 N.Y.2d 417, 425).
Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL article 440 was properly denied without a hearing. Viewing defendant's allegations in the light most favorable to defendant, they would, at most, cast doubt upon the bona fides of the People's refusal to grant defendant's wife the immunity required in order to compel her to testify as a defense witness on the issue of defendant's sanity, since the People apparently had little desire to bring the case against defendant's wife to trial. These allegations did not establish that the People had secretly granted the wife de facto immunity, and, in any event, defendant would not be entitled to a new trial, because his wife's testimony would have been cumulative or irrelevant to the sanity issue. Obviously, "the prosecutor's decision in this case did not deprive the defendant of all witnesses for the defense" (People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 248; see also, People v. Owens, 63 N.Y.2d 824).
Since the motion lacked any merit, it was also an appropriate exercise of discretion for the court to deny it on procedural grounds (CPL 440.10 [a], [c]). In view of all these circumstances, it was proper for the court to deny access to sealed records of defendant's wife's case.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.