| People v Quan Hong Ye |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00709 [92 AD3d 407] |
| February 2, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v QuanHong Ye, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), entered on or aboutDecember 28, 2010, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment ofconviction rendered April 8, 2004, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motionto vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence would nothave created the "probability" of changing the result that is required by the statute (see Peoplev Taylor, 246 AD2d 410 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 978 [1998]).
Years after defendant's trial, the People's main witness was convicted of serious charges.Most of the corrupt conduct that led to this detective's conviction occurred after defendant's trial,and none of it was connected in any way with defendant's case. The newly discovered evidencewould have merely impeached the detective as to his general credibility. Furthermore, thisdetective's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, particularly as to the substance ofdefendant's incriminating statements. Accordingly, defendant did not establish that the newevidence would probably have resulted in a different verdict (see People v Tai, 273 AD2d150, 151 [2000]; compare People vJackson, 29 AD3d 328 [2006]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz,Acosta and Freedman, JJ.