From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Feerick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 2004
7 A.D.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3533.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2003, which denied defendants' motions pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate their judgments of conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Patricia Feerick-Kossmann, Massapequa Park, appellant pro se and as counsel for Rosario and Schultz, appellants.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sylvia Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin, JJ.


Defendants' motions were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing since the claims could be determined on the basis of the trial record and the submissions on the motion ( see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799).

The People did not violate their duty to disclose exculpatory information, since the trial record clearly establishes that the People furnished, or made available, the pertinent information about the complainant's 1983 narcotics arrest to all of the defendants ( see People v. Doshi, 93 N.Y.2d 499, 506); since there is no basis in the record upon which to find that the action taken in 1992 when the complainant was returned on a violation of probation warrant constituted undisclosed lenient treatment ( see People v. Ross, 288 A.D.2d 138, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 655); and since the criminal history of the complainant's nontestifying boyfriend was immaterial under the circumstances. In any event, there is no reasonable possibility that any of the alleged nondisclosures affected the result ( see People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67).

The decisions by this Court ( 241 A.D.2d 126, 136-138) and the Court of Appeals ( 93 N.Y.2d 433, 452) on defendants' direct appeals are dispositive of their claims concerning allegedly undisclosed Rosario material, and we reject defendants' arguments to the contrary ( see People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; see also CPL 440.10[a]).

We have considered and rejected defendants' remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Feerick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 2004
7 A.D.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Feerick

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICIA FEERICK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 4, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 529

Citing Cases

People v. Schultz

August 4, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 7 AD3d 267 (NY). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal —…

People v. Rosario

August 4, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 7 AD3d 267 (NY). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal —…