Legal Opinion
People v. Brandl
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 27, 1996PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that reversal is required by the failure of the People to produce Brady and Rosario material is not preserved for our review because defense counsel failed to make appropriate timely objections when the alleged violations came to his attention (see, People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005, rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989; People v Fedora, 186 AD2d 982, lv denied 81 NY2d 762). Were we to review that contention, we would conclude that there was no Brady or Rosario violation because the material in question was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. CortijoNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. PadroNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. PooleNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. CarrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. CarrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
- People v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
- People v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025