Opinion
No. KA 03-02486.
December 22, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered September 23, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts).
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM CLAUSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES LEE HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ELIZABETH CLIFFORD OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law, the post-trial motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1J) and two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [2]). Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the People violated their duty under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83) to disclose exculpatory material obtained by an investigator for the Monroe County District Attorney. "The subject material was Brady material because it affected the credibility of a key prosecution witness, and [the] failure to disclose it constituted a Brady violation" ( People v Monroe, 17 AD3d 863, 864; see People v Baxley, 84 NY2d 208, 213, rearg dismissed 86 NY2d 886; People v Valentin, 1 AD3d 982, lv denied 1 NY3d 602). Reversal of defendant's judgment of conviction is required, moreover, because defendant made a specific request for such material and "there is a `reasonable possibility' that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different" ( People v Bond, 95 NY2d 840, 843, quoting People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77).
We reject the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). In view of our decision, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.