PEOPLE v. GARDNER (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10[1] ) and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 155.40[1] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly denied his motion for a mistrial based on the People's delay in disclosing Rosario material inasmuch as defendant failed to establish that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay in obtaining the material (see People v. Goston, 9 A.D.3d 905, 906-907, 779 N.Y.S.2d 699, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 706, 785 N.Y.S.2d 34, 818 N.E.2d 676;  see also People v. Watkins, 17 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 793 N.Y.S.2d 657, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 771, 801 N.Y.S.2d 265, 834 N.E.2d 1275).   Indeed, the record establishes that the court afforded defendant a continuance to review the Rosario material and an opportunity to recall any witnesses (cf. People v. Schoolfield, 196 A.D.2d 111, 118, 608 N.Y.S.2d 413).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The People presented evidence establishing that the fire was neither accidental nor the result of natural causes, and they presented overwhelming circumstantial evidence that defendant set the fire and had the financial motive to do so.   Thus, we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally id.).

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposes sentence be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed as moot and the judgment is affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: