PEOPLE v. ROSSELLI (2006)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the People timely and effectively communicated their notice of readiness for trial.   The record establishes that there was the requisite “communication of readiness by the People which appears on the trial court's record” (People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331, 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287), and defendant concedes that defense counsel received a timely facsimile transmission of the People's written notice of readiness, thus satisfying the further requirement that “a written notice of readiness [be] sent by the prosecutor to ․ defense counsel” (id.).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in restricting the cross-examination of a prosecution witness with respect to her current financial difficulties (see generally People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804, mot. to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, 370 N.Y.S.2d 919, 331 N.E.2d 695, cert. denied 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 116, 46 L.Ed.2d 88) and, in any event, any error in the court's restriction of the cross-examination of that witness is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Lewis, 168 A.D.2d 637, 564 N.Y.S.2d 181, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 997, 571 N.Y.S.2d 923, 575 N.E.2d 409).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

MEMORANDUM: