People v Malone

Annotate this Case
People v Malone 2011 NY Slip Op 07485 Decided on October 25, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 25, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5808

[*1]The People of the State of New York, 13847C/09 Respondent,

v

Darren Malone, Defendant-Appellant.




Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Nancy E.
Little of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jenetha G. Philbert
of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered May 14, 2009, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree, attempted menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 months, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to draw an adverse inference from the People's failure to preserve cell phone photographs that the victim took of her injuries and showed to the prosecutor. The photos were not discoverable under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) because there is no indication they were exculpatory or otherwise favorable to the defense. They were not discoverable under People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) because they were not prior statements of a witness (see CPL 240.45[1][a]; People v Wilson, 210 AD2d 520, 521 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 982 [1995]).

Defendant's argument that the People were required by CPL 240.20(1)(d) to obtain and disclose the photographs is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant did not establish any basis for an adverse inference.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2011

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.