From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued June 22, 1999

October 12, 1999

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.).


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial. The court's adverse inference charge was an appropriate remedy for the People's failure to timely comply with the defendant's discovery demand ( see, CPL 240.20[c], 240.70; People v. Cunningham, 189 A.D.2d 821, 822; People v. Vargulik, 130 A.D.2d 530, 531).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

THOMPSON, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:The People, etc., respondent, v. Sam Hill, appellant. (Ind. No. 2110/97)

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

Date published: Oct 12, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 627

Citing Cases

People v. Perez

On the record before us, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion. An adverse inference…

People v. Norwood

Under the circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Less…