| People v Palu (Iulia) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 50354(U) [22 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on February 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Bedford, Westchester County
(Charles G. Banks, J.), rendered April 9, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a
nonjury trial, of speeding.
Appeal held in abeyance and matter remitted to the Justice Court for a determination in accordance with the decision herein.
By simplified traffic information, defendant was charged with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic
Law § 1180 [d]). At trial, defendant's attorney requested disclosure of material, including
the trooper's notes, which are not contained in the record on appeal, regarding the incident. As
the simplified traffic information did not charge defendant with a misdemeanor, she was not
entitled to discovery pursuant to section 240.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see CPL
240.20 [1]). However, defendant was entitled to Rosario material (see generally
CPL 240.45), and the Justice Court erred to the extent it held otherwise and denied her access to
the trooper's notes concerning the charge in question (see People v Minihan, 180 Misc
2d 776 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1999]). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this
nonjury case, the appeal is held in abeyance and the matter remitted to the Justice Court for a
review of said notes, relating to the subject charge, in conjunction with the parties, to determine
whether vacatur of the judgment of conviction and a new trial is warranted by virtue of the fact
that "there is a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result
of the trial" (see CPL 240.75; People v Yavru-Sakuk, 4 NY3d 814, 815-816
[2005]; People v Felix-Torres, 281 AD2d 649 [2001]). In the event the Justice Court
denies vacatur, defendant may, within 21 days following such determination, submit a
[*2]
supplemental brief to this court addressing the issue of
whether defendant was prejudiced by the failure to disclose, and the People may, within 14 days
thereafter, submit a responsive supplemental brief.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2009