Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Simon SAMANDAROV, appellant.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered March 15, 2005, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated December 12, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction rendered March 15, 2005.
ORDERED that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(2), based upon alleged juror misconduct (see People v. Martin, 54 A.D.3d 776, 863 N.Y.S.2d 491; People v. Vincent, 48 A.D.3d 835, 851 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Covington, 44 A.D.3d 510, 843 N.Y.S.2d 606; cf. People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 708 N.Y.S.2d 44, 729 N.E.2d 701; People v. Magnano, 175 A.D.2d 639, 572 N.Y.S.2d 828; People v. Gardella, 55 A.D.2d 607, 389 N.Y.S.2d 118). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that, contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The court also correctly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction, inasmuch as the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was a Rosario violation (see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64) or that, if such violation did occur, there was a reasonable possibility that any failure by the prosecution to make Rosario disclosure materially contributed to the verdict (see People v. Machado, 90 N.Y.2d 187, 188-189, 659 N.Y.S.2d 242, 681 N.E.2d 409; People v. Cohen, 242 A.D.2d 473, 662 N.Y.S.2d 310; People v. Adorno, 202 A.D.2d 439, 608 N.Y.S.2d 678).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 12, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)