Opinion
1609-1609A
September 24, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered March 27, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 25 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 18, 2000, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
CHRISTOPHER J. BLIRA-KOESSLER, for respondent.
WILLIAM J. ROBEDEE, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The credible evidence clearly warranted an inference of accessorial conduct (see People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830).
Defendant's CPL 440.10 motion was properly denied after a thorough hearing. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). Based on the credible evidence, the court properly determined that there were no violations of the People's disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83). Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's pro se request to reopen the hearing, since the additional document defendant wished to introduce should have been introduced at the proper time and would not, in any event, have affected the result of the hearing.
Viewed as a whole, the record before us establishes that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).
When a testifying witness gave unexpected and damaging responses at trial, the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to confer with her privately with appropriate safeguards (see People v. Branch, 83 N.Y.2d 663, 667).
Defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial because of the court's questioning of a witness is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's questioning was not excessive and served to clarify issues and develop significant factual information in the case (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56-57).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.