Opinion
April 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application for a continuance to facilitate production of the complainant's Naval discharge papers, in light of the collateral nature of the papers, which touched only remotely on credibility. We note the People were unaware of the existence of such papers until complainant testified at trial. Assuming, arguendo, that such papers constituted Brady material, there is no reasonable possibility that the People's failure to produce such papers contributed in any way to the verdict (see, People v Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67). In this connection, we note that defendant abandoned his motion for a mistrial in pursuing his argument for a continuance (see, People v Little, 55 N.Y.2d 770, 771).
The trial court also properly discharged a sitting juror as "grossly unqualified", after ascertaining and placing on the record its findings that the juror in question was severely preoccupied by her mother's unexpected and serious illness, was unwilling to be sequestered, and was set on a verdict despite the fact that the court had not yet charged the jury on the law (see, People v Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 299).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.