People v. Young, 61 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Young, 61 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Tieman (nyappdiv, 2013-12-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tieman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
There is no evidence in the record that the material in question, state police radio logs pertaining to the subject incident, actually existed (see People v Young, 61 AD3d 786, 786 [2009]; People v Pines, 298 AD2d 179, 180 [2002]; see also People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462, 464 [2006]; People v Melendez, 259 AD2d 500 [1999]; People v Ray, 224 AD2d 722 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tieman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
There is no evidence in the record that the material in question, state police radio logs pertaining to the subject incident, actually existed (see People v Young, 61 AD3d 786, 786 [2009]; People v Pines, 298 AD2d 179, 180 [2002]; see also People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462, 464 [2006]; People v Melendez, 259 AD2d 500 [1999]; People v Ray, 224 AD2d 722 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Andrew Young
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 14, 2009.
61 A.D.3d 786
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered November 1, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court’s failure to impose sanctions for the People’s alleged failure to disclose alleged Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]; CPL 240.45) denied him a fair trial. However, the record does not demonstrate a “factual basis that the [material] in question actually existed and also incorporated statements made by a witness concerning the subject matter of the incident” (People v Pines, 298 AD2d 179, 180 [2002]; see People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462, 464 [2006]; see also People v Melendez, 259 AD2d 500 [1999]; People v Ray, 224 AD2d 722 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to draw an adverse inference based on the People’s alleged failure to disclose alleged Rosario material (see People v Smith, 33 AD3d at 464; see also People v Melendez, 259 AD2d at 500; People v Ray, 224 AD2d at 722).

The defendant’s contention that this matter should be remitted for a Rosario hearing is without merit, since the defendant failed to articulate a factual basis for the assertion that the alleged Rosario material existed (see People v Brown, 286 AD2d 340, 341 [2001]; People v Rodriguez, 270 AD2d 505 [2000]; People v Baptiste, 269 AD2d 536, 537 [2000]; cf. People v Dockery, 278 AD2d 427, 427-428 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.