487 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1973–2025 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2008Because the issue of preclusion of the $10 involves a Rosario violation, no harmless error analysis may be applied (see People v Banch, 80 NY2d at 615 ; People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 551-553 [1987]). 2008Because the issue of preclusion of the $10 involves a Rosario violation, no harmless error analysis may be applied (see People v Banch, 80 NY2d at 615 ; People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 551-553 [1987]). | 18 | 36 |
People v. Ranghellegreen2 sentences2017In any event, even if there were a Rosario violation, the appropriate remedy was a new trial, not dismissal of the indictment (see People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63 [1986]; People v Garrett, 177 AD2d 1, 3 [1992]). 2017In any event, even if there were a Rosario violation, the appropriate remedy was a new trial, not dismissal of the indictment (see People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63 [1986]; People v Garrett, 177 AD2d 1, 3 [1992]). | 14 | 70 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2008Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because of a Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961]), since there was no showing that the defendant was substantially prejudiced (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]; People v Best, 186 AD2d 141 [1992]). 2008Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because of a Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961]), since there was no showing that the defendant was substantially prejudiced (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]; People v Best, 186 AD2d 141 [1992]). | 10 | 36 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2019More 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]). | 10 | 34 |
People v. Rogeliogreen2 sentences2015Defendant’s contention that the People committed a Rosario violation by failing to preserve a police officer’s notes is also unpreserved because defendant did not object to the destruction of the notes or seek a sanction (see People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844 [1992]; People v Sanzotta, 191 AD2d 1032, 1032-1033 [1993]). 2015Defendant’s contention that the People committed a Rosario violation by failing to preserve a police officer’s notes is also unpreserved because defendant did not object to the destruction of the notes or seek a sanction (see People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844 [1992]; People v Sanzotta, 191 AD2d 1032, 1032-1033 [1993]). | 10 | 28 |
People v. Banchgreen2 sentences2008Because the issue of preclusion of the $10 involves a Rosario violation, no harmless error analysis may be applied (see People v Banch, 80 NY2d at 615 ; People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 551-553 [1987]). 2008Because the issue of preclusion of the $10 involves a Rosario violation, no harmless error analysis may be applied (see People v Banch, 80 NY2d at 615 ; People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 551-553 [1987]). | 9 | 30 |
People v. Consolaziogreen2 sentences2018Therefore, since the Miranda card was not a prior statement of a prosecution witness ( cf. People v Consolazio , 40 NY2d 446, 453 ), the failure to produce the Miranda card did not constitute a Rosario violation. 2018Therefore, since the Miranda card was not a prior statement of a prosecution witness ( cf. People v Consolazio , 40 NY2d 446, 453 ), the failure to produce the Miranda card did not constitute a Rosario violation. | 5 | 35 |
People v. Rosariogreen2 sentences2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the People did not commit a Rosario violation ( see People v Rosario , 9 NY2d 286 ). 2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the People did not commit a Rosario violation ( see People v Rosario , 9 NY2d 286 ). | 4 | 150 |
People v. Poolegreen2 sentences2010As County Court is not obliged to assist defendant in “an unrestrained ‘tour of investigation seeking generally useful information’ ” that lies outside the bounds of the Rosario rule, we would reject defendant’s Rosario argument and address his remaining claims of error (People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144, 148 [1979], quoting People v Rosario, 9 NY2d at 290 ). 2000After conducting a sufficient inquiry of the prosecutor and a police witness, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to examine the officer’s notes to determine whether they suggested that other notes had been prepared by the officer that were not turned over to the defense in violation of the Rosario rule (see, People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144 ). | 4 | 24 |
People v. Novoagreen2 sentences1995(People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638 [1991]; People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490 [1987].) Nevertheless, both the First and Second Departments have held that the Rosario rule does not apply to autopsy tapes in the possession of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. 1995(People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638 [1991]; People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490 [1987].) Nevertheless, both the First and Second Departments have held that the Rosario rule does not apply to autopsy tapes in the possession of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. | 4 | 18 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2021To the extent the defendant contends that there was a Rosario violation, her contention is without merit ( see People v Rosario , 9 NY2d 286 ; see generally People v Kelly , 88 NY2d 248 ). 2021To the extent the defendant contends that there was a Rosario violation, her contention is without merit ( see People v Rosario , 9 NY2d 286 ; see generally People v Kelly , 88 NY2d 248 ). | 4 | 11 |
People v. Gillisgreen2 sentences2023Pursuant to former CPL 240.45 (1) (a), the People were required to disclose to defendant "[a]ny written or recorded statement . . . made by a person whom the prosecution intends to call as a witness at trial, and which relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony." "To establish a Rosario violation, it is incumbent upon a defendant to show that the claimed Rosario material was available and was not turned over to the defense" ( People v Gillis , 220 AD2d 802, 805 [3d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 921 [1996]). 2023Pursuant to former CPL 240.45 (1) (a), the People were required to disclose to defendant "[a]ny written or recorded statement . . . made by a person whom the prosecution intends to call as a witness at trial, and which relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony." "To establish a Rosario violation, it is incumbent upon a defendant to show that the claimed Rosario material was available and was not turned over to the defense" ( People v Gillis , 220 AD2d 802, 805 [3d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 921 [1996]). | 4 | 7 |
| People v. Sanzottagreen | 4 | 5 |
| People v. Fulwileygreen | 4 | 5 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 4 | 4 |
People v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2013Assuming that the failure to preserve such a recording constituted a Rosario violation, the court had discretion to determine the appropriate sanction (see People v Wallace, 76 NY2d 953, 955 [1990]; People v Shcherenkov, 21 AD3d 651, 652 [2005]). 2013Assuming that the failure to preserve such a recording constituted a Rosario violation, the court had discretion to determine the appropriate sanction (see People v Wallace, 76 NY2d 953, 955 [1990]; People v Shcherenkov, 21 AD3d 651, 652 [2005]). | 3 | 8 |
| People v. Feerickgreen | 3 | 6 |
| People v. Hamiltongreen | 3 | 5 |
| People v. Gardnergreen | 3 | 5 |
| People v. Comfortgreen | 3 | 3 |
| People v. Cheshergreen | 3 | 3 |
| People v. Felix-Torresgreen | 3 | 3 |
People v. MacHadogreen2 sentences2008The court also correctly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction, inasmuch as the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was a Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) or that, if such violation did occur, there was a reasonable possibility that any failure by the prosecution to make Rosario disclosure materially contributed to the verdict (see People v Machado, 90 NY2d 187, 188-189 [1997]; People v Cohen, 242 AD2d 473 [1997]; People v Adorno, 202 AD2d 439 [1994]). 2008The court also correctly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction, inasmuch as the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was a Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) or that, if such violation did occur, there was a reasonable possibility that any failure by the prosecution to make Rosario disclosure materially contributed to the verdict (see People v Machado, 90 NY2d 187, 188-189 [1997]; People v Cohen, 242 AD2d 473 [1997]; People v Adorno, 202 AD2d 439 [1994]). | 2 | 8 |
People v. Baldigreen2 sentences2025Because defendant fails to establish any Brady or Rosario violation, his contention that counsel's failure to pursue such claims constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). 2000(People v Baldi, supra, at 147 ; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998].) A single error by counsel which “so seriously compromises a defendant’s right to a fair trial * * * will qualify as ineffective representation.” (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1995]; People v Ferguson, 114 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 1986] [failure to make timely motion for suppression deprived defendant of effective assistance of counsel]; Flores v Demskie, 215 F3d 293 [2d Cir 2000] [applying the two-prong analysis of Strickland , court found that trial counsel’s waiver of a Rosario claim constituted ineffective assis | 2 | 7 |
People v. Sorbellogreen2 sentences2010Another critical factor overlooked by the majority is that the cases they rely upon were handed down prior to the enactment of CPL 240.75, which jettisoned the rule requiring per se reversal for a Rosario violation in favor of one where reversal is necessary only if “there is a reasonable possibility that the nondisclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial or other proceeding” (CPL 240.75; see People v Sorbello, 285 AD2d 88, 90-93 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]; People v Felix-Torres, 281 AD2d 649, 650-651 [2001]). 2010Another critical factor overlooked by the majority is that the cases they rely upon were handed down prior to the enactment of CPL 240.75, which jettisoned the rule requiring per se reversal for a Rosario violation in favor of one where reversal is necessary only if “there is a reasonable possibility that the nondisclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial or other proceeding” (CPL 240.75; see People v Sorbello, 285 AD2d 88, 90-93 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]; People v Felix-Torres, 281 AD2d 649, 650-651 [2001]). | 2 | 7 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences1995Likewise, the People’s failure to preserve a tape recording of a telephone call made by the complainants to the 911 emergency line following the incident, in violation of the Rosario rule (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 ), did not warrant dismissal of the indictment (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610 ; People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516 ; People v Gibbs, 211 AD2d 641 ). 1995Likewise, the People’s failure to preserve a tape recording of a telephone call made by the complainants to the 911 emergency line following the incident, in violation of the Rosario rule (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 ), did not warrant dismissal of the indictment (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610 ; People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516 ; People v Gibbs, 211 AD2d 641 ). | 2 | 7 |
| People v. Flynngreen | 2 | 7 |
People v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences1994While the Court of Appeals applied a harmless error analysis to affirm the defendant’s conviction in that case, the Court of Appeals subsequently held that a complete failure to turn over Rosario material, no matter how trivial the consequence to the defendant’s case, and regardless of the prosecutor’s good faith, requires reversal per se (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 ). 1 "The law is clear that a violation of the Rosario rule * * * cannot be considered harmless error even if the nondisclosed material would have been of limited impeachment value to the defense so that the People’s failure to 1994While the Court of Appeals applied a harmless error analysis to affirm the defendant’s conviction in that case, the Court of Appeals subsequently held that a complete failure to turn over Rosario material, no matter how trivial the consequence to the defendant’s case, and regardless of the prosecutor’s good faith, requires reversal per se (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 ). 1 "The law is clear that a violation of the Rosario rule * * * cannot be considered harmless error even if the nondisclosed material would have been of limited impeachment value to the defense so that the People’s failure to | 2 | 7 |
| People v. Vilardigreen | 2 | 6 |
| People v. Baghai-Kermanigreen | 2 | 5 |
| Iacono v. New York City Police Departmentgreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Sterngreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Wolfgreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Floresgreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Whitegreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Gilligangreen | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Medinagreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Tiemangreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Matosgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cummings v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the adverse witness charge was an insufficient sanction for the Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]; CPL 470.05 [2]). 2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the adverse witness charge was an insufficient sanction for the Rosario violation (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]; CPL 470.05 [2]). | 75 | 1986–2012 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2010The defendant’s contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People’s failure to provide him with certain materials in violation of People v Rosario ( 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) and by the People’s delay in disclosing Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not seek any further relief in connection with the Rosario violation after the Supreme Court granted his request for an adverse inference charge, and did not raise his current claim regard 2010The defendant’s contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People’s failure to provide him with certain materials in violation of People v Rosario ( 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) and by the People’s delay in disclosing Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not seek any further relief in connection with the Rosario violation after the Supreme Court granted his request for an adverse inference charge, and did not raise his current claim regard | 16 | 1984–2010 |
New York v. Consolazio
green
2 sentences1994The Court of Appeals has "periodically refined” the Rosario rule to ensure that a defendant " 'receives the full benefit of a [prosecution] witness’ statements for impeachment purposes’ ” (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 62 ), and has extended the disclosure requirement to apply, for example, to statements of prosecution witnesses testifying at suppression hearings (see, People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86, 90-91 ), prosecutor’s worksheets (see, People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 453 , cert denied 433 US 914 ), and taped statements made by a prosecution witness to private parties where the tapes were 1994The Court of Appeals has "periodically refined” the Rosario rule to ensure that a defendant " 'receives the full benefit of a [prosecution] witness’ statements for impeachment purposes’ ” (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 62 ), and has extended the disclosure requirement to apply, for example, to statements of prosecution witnesses testifying at suppression hearings (see, People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86, 90-91 ), prosecutor’s worksheets (see, People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 453 , cert denied 433 US 914 ), and taped statements made by a prosecution witness to private parties where the tapes were | 10 | 1987–1995 |
People v. Rivera
neutral
2 sentences1998A defendant’s actions or inaction may constitute a waiver of any Rosario claim (People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 900 , supra; People v Rivera, 78 NY2d 901 ; see also, People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844 ). 1996The appellant’s remaining contention, involving an alleged Rosario violation, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ; People v Rivera, 78 NY2d 901 ) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v McKinley, 202 AD2d 520, 521 ). | 9 | 1993–1998 |
People v. Graves
green
2 sentences2002Defendant’s claim that the prosecution’s belated disclosure of the audio portion of a videotape of one of defendant’s drug sales constituted a Rosario violation is unpreserved since defendant failed to request any remedy (People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024 ; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. 2002Defendant’s claim that the prosecution’s belated disclosure of the audio portion of a videotape of one of defendant’s drug sales constituted a Rosario violation is unpreserved since defendant failed to request any remedy (People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024 ; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. | 8 | 1996–2002 |
People v. Suitte
green
2 sentences2002The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Goolsby, 213 AD2d 722 ; People v Taylor, 155 AD2d 630 ; People v Patterson, 106 AD2d 520 ; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). 2002The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 8 | 1993–2002 |
People v. Adger
green
2 sentences1999We therefore remand for a more complete Rosario hearing to elucidate, inter alia, the manner in which these witness outlines were created (see, People v Adger, 75 NY2d 723, 726 ), because the record does not disclose that the trial court performed a thorough and complete examination of the Tolosa outline or heard testimony from the prosecutors about their creation of the undisclosed outlines at issue (other than Donner’s). 1999We therefore remand for a more complete Rosario hearing to elucidate, inter alia, the manner in which these witness outlines were created (see, People v Adger, 75 NY2d 723, 726 ), because the record does not disclose that the trial court performed a thorough and complete examination of the Tolosa outline or heard testimony from the prosecutors about their creation of the undisclosed outlines at issue (other than Donner’s). | 7 | 1991–1999 |
| People v. Jackson green | 6 | 1993–2001 |
| People v. Williams neutral | 6 | 1992–1998 |
| People v. Feliz green | 5 | 2005–2015 |
| People v. Rashid green | 5 | 1991–2002 |
| People v. Tamayo green | 5 | 1996–1998 |
| People v. Howard green | 4 | 1996–2019 |
| People v. Haupt green | 4 | 1990–2000 |
| People v. McNeil green | 4 | 1992–1995 |
| People v. Hentley green | 4 | 1990–1992 |
| People v. Daniels green | 3 | 2014–2014 |
| Tear v. Texas green | 3 | 2013–2013 |
| City of Hawthorne, California v. California Department of Toxic Substances Control green | 3 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. GARZONE green | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.