PEOPLE v. POLADIAN

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Dec 22, 2003

Judgment

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has largely failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was prejudiced by the late disclosure of certain Rosario material ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866; People v. Robertson, 275 A.D.2d 380). In any event, reversal is not warranted since the defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice from the delay in disclosure ( see CPL 240.75; People v. King, 298 A.D.2d 530, 531; People v. Page, 296 A.D.2d 427, 427-428; People v. Small, 286 A.D.2d 513; People v. Sorbello, 285 A.D.2d 88, 92-93). The material was discovered prior to cross-examination of the relevant witness ( see People v. Page, supra; People v. King, supra at 531).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.