People v Mattocks

2005 NY Slip Op 01558

Decided on February 28, 2005

Appellate Division, Second Department

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 28, 2005
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
SONDRA MILLER
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
2003-10916






Steven B. Wasserman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and
Tziyonah M. Langsam of counsel), for
respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), entered November 20, 2003, which denied his post-conviction motion pursuant to CPL 440.30(1-a) for DNA testing.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.30(1-a) for DNA testing of specified evidence admitted at his trial since he failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the test results would have resulted in a verdict that was more favorable to him had the DNA test results been admitted into evidence at trial (see CPL 440.30[1-a]; People v Leung, 3 AD3d 582; People v Shenouda, 307 AD2d 938; People v Pugh, 288 AD2d 634; People v Kellar, 218 AD2d 406).
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, S. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.

2003-10916 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION[*2]
The People, etc., respondent,
v Michael Mattocks, appellant.
(Ind. No. 665/81)

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to enlarge the judgment roll on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 20, 2003, to include the affidavit of Sergeant Moy, Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department, dated April 24, 2004. By decision and order on motion of this court dated June 16, 2004, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of that branch of the motion which was to enlarge the judgment roll, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the judgment roll is denied.
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, S. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court