People v. Valentine, 160 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Valentine, 160 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Saleh v. 245 Ontario Express, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2024-03-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Saleh v. 245 Ontario Express, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Further, "termination of the prime lease will ordinarily prevent the exercise of a renewal option in a sublease" ( Cahill v COHI Towers Assoc. , 160 AD2d 325, 325 [1st Dept 1990]; see Leibowitz v Bickford's Lunch Sys. , 241 NY 489, 496-497 [1926]; see generally Minister, Elders & Deacons of Ref.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Simmons (Davon)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2017 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to put forth a "factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely" that the file contents would "directly bear on the hard issue of guilt or innocence" and not merely constitute a fishing expedition to gain information to impeach a witness's general credibility ( People v Gissendanner , 48 NY2d 543 , 549—550 [1979]; People v Valentine , 160 AD2d 325, 326 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 797 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP v. Civilian Complaint Review Board
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Finally, the examination of personnel records requires a showing that “[the] . . . records are relevant to the merits of the action and are not sought merely to conduct ‘a fishing expedition to gain information to impeach a witness’s general credibility’ ” (Flores, 207 AD2d at 303 , quoting People v Valentine, 160 AD2d 325, 326 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 797 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mills
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The court also properly determined there was no basis to grant defendant’s request for the court to subpoena the undercover officer’s personnel file for an in camera inspection (see Civil Rights Law § 50-a [2]; People v Valentine, 160 AD2d 325, 326 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 797 [1990]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to set forth “in good faith * * * some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely” that the file contents would “directly bear on the hard issue of guilt or innocence” and failed to show that he would not merely conduct a fishing expedition to gain information to impeach the officer’s general credibility (People v Gissendanner, supra, at 550 ; see, People v Valentine, 160 AD2d 325, 326 , lv denied IQ NY2d 797).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Samuel Valentine
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 10, 1990.
160 A.D.2d 325
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered July 6, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

[*326] Contrary to defendant’s contentions, he was not entitled to the imposition of sanctions as a result of the prosecutor’s inability to turn over to the defense a missing report of a telephone conversation concerning the actions of a codefendant. A defendant is entitled to any recorded statement of a prosecution witness (CPL 240.44, 240.45; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866). When evidence is lost, the trial court should consider the circumstances surrounding the loss to determine an appropriate remedy or whether any corrective action need be taken at all (People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516). Factors to be considered include the degree of negligence or bad faith on the part of law enforcement personnel, the importance of the lost evidence, and the sufficiency of other evidence adduced at trial (People v Saddy, 84 AD2d 175, 179, quoting United States v Bryant, 439 F2d 642, 653). The court must balance any prejudice to defendant with the protection of the interests of society (People v Kelly, 62 NY2d, supra, at 520). Here, the trial court was justified in imposing no sanction as there was no evidence of bad faith and there was no showing of prejudice as the conversation did not relate to defendant and a transcript of the conversation was available. (See, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940.)

Defendant also argues that the court erred in refusing to conduct an in camera inspection of a special agent’s personnel file. Such inspection must be conducted only where there is "a clear showing of facts sufficient to warrant the judge to request records for review” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a [2]). While this standard is liberally construed, a defendant must put forth "in good faith * * * some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely” that the file contents would "directly bear on the hard issue of guilt or innocence” and not merely constitute a fishing expedition to gain information to impeach a witness’s general credibility (People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550). Here, there was only an unsupported allegation that disciplinary reports might exist which related to a collateral issue regarding a codefendant. Such "speculation and surmise” did not amount to a " 'clear showing of facts’ ” justifying an in camera inspection (People v Lugo, 93 Misc 2d 195, 200). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.