People
v.
Figueroa

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First DepartmentFeb 4, 1999
258 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
258 A.D.2d 280685 N.Y.S.2d 53

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Schaefer

    …The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting both sides from questioning prospective…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

February 4, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).


The court properly ruled that the reports prepared by the Probation Department in connection with the testifying co-indictee were not Rosario material because they were confidential documents not within the possession or control of the People (CPL 390.50; People v. Morris, 153 A.D.2d 984, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 922; People v. Mayers, 100 A.D.2d 558, lv denied 62 N.Y.2d 651).

The court's preclusion of proposed testimony did not prevent defendant from presenting a defense. Rather, the court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the proposed testimony, as collateral, in that defendant's offer of proof indicated that the testimony concerned only the general credibility of a prosecution witness ( see, People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891). Further, since the possible reason for the witness to fabricate was acknowledged by the witness, the proposed testimony would have been cumulative ( see, People v. Brooks, 131 N.Y. 321, 326-327).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Saxe, JJ.