Opinion
May 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.).
The hearing court correctly determined that there was a reasonable possibility that the People's failure to disclose Pauline Joseph's statements to an FBI agent on June 18 and August 11, 1971 contributed to the verdict (see, People v. Jackson, 78 N.Y.2d 638, 649; People v. White, 200 A.D.2d 351). Those statements were not only inconsistent with Joseph's trial testimony, but pertained to events crucial to the People's theory of the case. Although the People argue that the court erroneously applied a "seldom if ever harmless" standard, rather than the "reasonable possibility" standard for determining prejudice, the court's analysis of the Rosario statements at issue demonstrates that a basis exists for finding Rosario prejudice based upon the "reasonable possibility" standard.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.