People
v.
Tran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentSep 15, 2003
764 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 636308 A.D.2d 497

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Pearson v. Ercole

    …If the Brady issue concerns matters that are dependent on material off the record but also involves material…

  • Sullivan v. Superintendent

    …10(2). "In deciding the question of the defendant's intent, a jury may look to the nature of the act the…

lock 5 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

2001-07192, 2002-03676

Argued June 16, 2003.

September 15, 2003.

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered July 16, 2001, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated April 1, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Richard Ware Levitt, New York, N.Y. (Michael K. Bachrach of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Noreen Healey of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the People committed a Brady violation ( see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83) by failing to provide certain police reports is without merit. The subject police reports did not constitute Brady material, as the defendant was aware of the facts set forth in the police reports ( see People v. Banks, 130 A.D.2d 498, 499). Further, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the police reports constituted newly-discovered evidence, as such evidence was merely cumulative and only served to bolster the testimony of the defendant at the trial ( see People v. Latella, 112 A.D.2d 321, 323).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250, 250), and, in any event, are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.