Summary
vacating 1990 conviction where prosecution failed to disclose promises made to witness in exchange for witness's testimony
Summary of this case from Buari v. City of New YorkOpinion
June 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.).
Our previous memorandum order on this appeal is hereby superceded. Upon reargument, we are persuaded that certain statements by a member of the District Attorney's office to a prosecution witness indicating that a decision on his part to testify for the prosecution would be instrumental in their working out a "favorable disposition" on pending charges constituted a promise which served as a quid pro quo for the witness' cooperation. In this situation, the prosecution's failure to disclose the statements to the defense and its permitting the witness to testify that no promises were made was improper (People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490, 497; People v. Lewis, 174 A.D.2d 294). Under the circumstances of this case, reversal is therefore required.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.