Brady violation in New York

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2026"To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 766 [2009]; see People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). "[W]here a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a 'reasonable possibility' t

2026"To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 766 [2009]; see People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). "[W]here a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a 'reasonable possibility' t

2023Even assuming, arguendo, that a Brady violation did occur, we conclude that there was no violation of defendant's right to a fair trial because he was "given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People's witnesses or as evidence during his case" ( People v Cortijo , 70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; see People v Gazzillo , 177 AD3d 1406 , 1407 [4th Dept 2019]; People v McMillian , 158 AD3d 1059 , 1060 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1119 [2018]).

2023Even assuming, arguendo, that a Brady violation did occur, we conclude that there was no violation of defendant's right to a fair trial because he was "given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People's witnesses or as evidence during his case" ( People v Cortijo , 70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; see People v Gazzillo , 177 AD3d 1406 , 1407 [4th Dept 2019]; People v McMillian , 158 AD3d 1059 , 1060 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1119 [2018]).

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2019The People have an obligation under Brady to disclose evidence and information in their possession that is both material and favorable to the defense (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 73 [1990]). “‘The Brady rule is based on the requirement of due process,’ and ‘[i]ts purpose is not to displace the adversary system as the primary means by which truth is uncovered,’ but to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial” (People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 884 [2014], quoting United States v Bagley, 473 US 667, 675 [1985]).

2019The People have an obligation under Brady to disclose evidence and information in their possession that is both material and favorable to the defense (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 73 [1990]). “‘The Brady rule is based on the requirement of due process,’ and ‘[i]ts purpose is not to displace the adversary system as the primary means by which truth is uncovered,’ but to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial” (People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878, 884 [2014], quoting United States v Bagley, 473 US 667, 675 [1985]).

2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282 ; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]).

2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]).

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2026To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the prosecutor suppressed such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) defendant was prejudiced because the suppressed evidence was material ( Strickler v Greene , 527 US 263 [1999]; People v. Giuca, 33 NY3d 462, 473 [2019]; People v. Fuentes at 263 [2009]; Brady v. Maryland, supra).

2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282 ; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]).

2025To make out a successful Brady claim, "a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], citing Strickler , 527 US at 281-282; see People v Hayes , 17 NY3d 46, 50 [2011]; People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 109-110 [2004]).

2026As the Court of Appeals aptly recognized, a Brady violation cannot be cured or nullified by post-trial events ( Id. ).

2026As the Court of Appeals aptly recognized, a Brady violation cannot be cured or nullified by post-trial events ( Id. ).

2025"Impeachment evidence 'falls within the Brady rule' because, when used effectively, it 'may make the difference between conviction and acquittal' " ( id. , quoting United States v Bagley , 473 US 667, 676 [1985]; see also Giglio v United States , 405 US 150, 153-155 [1972]).

2025"Impeachment evidence 'falls within the Brady rule' because, when used effectively, it 'may make the difference between conviction and acquittal' " ( id. , quoting United States v Bagley , 473 US 667, 676 [1985]; see also Giglio v United States , 405 US 150, 153-155 [1972]).

2013“A Brady violation occurs when the People fail to timely disclose all exculpatory and material evidence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), including evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2008] [citation omitted]) or “[t]he existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the wit ness” (People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441 [1979]; see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see also Giglio v United States, 405

2013“A Brady violation occurs when the People fail to timely disclose all exculpatory and material evidence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), including evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2008] [citation omitted]) or “[t]he existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the wit ness” (People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441 [1979]; see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see also Giglio v United States, 405

2019We stated that the suppression of the material was a Brady violation, as “the jury could have found that, despite the witness’s protestations to the contrary, there was indeed a tacit understanding between the witness and the prosecution, or at least so the witness hoped” ( 46 NY2d at 441 [emphasis added]).

2013“A Brady violation occurs when the People fail to timely disclose all exculpatory and material evidence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), including evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2008] [citation omitted]) or “[t]he existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the wit ness” (People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441 [1979]; see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see also Giglio v United States, 405

2020We agree with the County Court that the defendant failed to establish a Brady violation by virtue of the People's failure to disclose a fingerprint comparison report. " Brady does not require that a prosecutor supply a defendant with evidence when the defendant knew of, or should reasonably have known of, the evidence and its exculpatory nature'" ( People v McClain , 53 AD3d 556, 556-557 , quoting People v Doshi , 93 NY2d 499, 506 ; see People v Wade , 166 AD3d 912 , 912-913; People v Banks , 130 AD2d 498, 499 ).

2020We agree with the County Court that the defendant failed to establish a Brady violation by virtue of the People's failure to disclose a fingerprint comparison report. " Brady does not require that a prosecutor supply a defendant with evidence when the defendant knew of, or should reasonably have known of, the evidence and its exculpatory nature'" ( People v McClain , 53 AD3d 556, 556-557 , quoting People v Doshi , 93 NY2d 499, 506 ; see People v Wade , 166 AD3d 912 , 912-913; People v Banks , 130 AD2d 498, 499 ).

2019More specifically, the County Court Judge determined that the People had committed a Rosario violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) (see People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638, 645 [1991]), "and/or" a Brady violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) ( see People v Baxley , 84 NY2d 208, 211-213 [1994], rearg dismissed 86 NY2d 886 [1995]).

2019More specifically, the County Court Judge determined that the People had committed a Rosario violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) (see People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638, 645 [1991]), "and/or" a Brady violation, which falls under CPL 440.10 (1) (h) ( see People v Baxley , 84 NY2d 208, 211-213 [1994], rearg dismissed 86 NY2d 886 [1995]).

2011A Brady analysis is undertaken by assessing the omitted evidence in light of the entire record (United States v Agurs, 427 US 97, 112 [1976]; United States v Rivas, 377 F3d 195 [2d Cir 2004]).

2011A Brady analysis is undertaken by assessing the omitted evidence in light of the entire record (United States v Agurs, 427 US 97, 112 [1976]; United States v Rivas, 377 F3d 195 [2d Cir 2004]).

2015It is not necessary for a defendant to prove that a witness’s testimony was false to establish a Brady violation; the jury has the obligation to assess credibility, and the People impede the exercise of that obligation when they fail to disclose evidence that could be used for impeachment purposes (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d at 497 ).

2015It is not necessary for a defendant to prove that a witness’s testimony was false to establish a Brady violation; the jury has the obligation to assess credibility, and the People impede the exercise of that obligation when they fail to disclose evidence that could be used for impeachment purposes (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d at 497 ).

2013“A Brady violation occurs when the People fail to timely disclose all exculpatory and material evidence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), including evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2008] [citation omitted]) or “[t]he existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the wit ness” (People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441 [1979]; see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see also Giglio v United States, 405

2013“A Brady violation occurs when the People fail to timely disclose all exculpatory and material evidence (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), including evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness” (People v Williams, 50 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2008] [citation omitted]) or “[t]he existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the wit ness” (People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441 [1979]; see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see also Giglio v United States, 405

2025Footnote 3: "To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009] [citation omitted]; see People v Slivienski , 204 AD3d 1228, 1239 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1136 [2022]).

2025Footnote 3: "To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009] [citation omitted]; see People v Slivienski , 204 AD3d 1228, 1239 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1136 [2022]).

2019In the absence of a specific request by defendant, materiality is established if there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed – meaning “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial’ ” (People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1, 5 [2008], quoting People v Bryce, 88 NY2d 124, 128 [1996]; see Kyles v Whitley, 514 US 419, 434 [1995]). - 12 - - 13 - No. 38 Defendant asserts this Brady violation in the procedural context of a postconviction CPL article 440 motion.

2019In the absence of a specific request by defendant, materiality is established if there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed – meaning “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial’ ” (People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1, 5 [2008], quoting People v Bryce, 88 NY2d 124, 128 [1996]; see Kyles v Whitley, 514 US 419, 434 [1995]). - 12 - - 13 - No. 38 Defendant asserts this Brady violation in the procedural context of a postconviction CPL article 440 motion.

2026"To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 766 [2009]; see People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). "[W]here a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a 'reasonable possibility' t

2026"To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v Fuentes , 12 NY3d 259, 263 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 766 [2009]; see People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878, 885 [2014], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1215 [2015]). "[W]here a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a 'reasonable possibility' t

2025"Impeachment evidence 'falls within the Brady rule' because, when used effectively, it 'may make the difference between conviction and acquittal' " ( id. , quoting United States v Bagley , 473 US 667, 676 [1985]; see also Giglio v United States , 405 US 150, 153-155 [1972]).

2025"Impeachment evidence 'falls within the Brady rule' because, when used effectively, it 'may make the difference between conviction and acquittal' " ( id. , quoting United States v Bagley , 473 US 667, 676 [1985]; see also Giglio v United States , 405 US 150, 153-155 [1972]).

2024Because "as a general matter the drastic remedy of dismissal should not be invoked where less severe measures can rectify the harm done" ( People v Kelly , 62 NY2d 516, 521 [1984]), the time afforded to defendant might have been deemed an appropriate remedy for the Brady violation.

2024Because "as a general matter the drastic remedy of dismissal should not be invoked where less severe measures can rectify the harm done" ( People v Kelly , 62 NY2d 516, 521 [1984]), the time afforded to defendant might have been deemed an appropriate remedy for the Brady violation.