| People v Reckovic |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07408 [100 AD3d 427] |
| November 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Safedin Reckovic, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Megan R. Roberts of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered March 20, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as asecond violent felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that, in the course of the robbery,defendant used or threatened the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (see PenalLaw § 160.15 [3]). The knife used by defendant qualified as a dangerous instrument(see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]) because it was readily capable of causing death orserious physical injury under the circumstances of its use or threatened use, and it was notrequired to qualify as a deadly weapon (see Penal Law § 10.00 [12]).
To the extent defendant is claiming that money recovered from him at the time of his arrestwas inadmissible, that claim is without merit. The issues raised by defendant concerning theauthentication of the money and whether it matched the funds taken from the victim were mattersaffecting the weight to be accorded this evidence and not its admissibility (see People vJulian, 41 NY2d 340, 343-344 [1977]).
The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge. In addition tobeing untimely, defendant's application failed to satisfy the requirements for such a charge(see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192 [2003]). In any event, any error in declining togive the charge was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (seePeople v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
There is no merit to defendant's arguments that the People failed to disclose exculpatory orimpeachment material, or failed to correct inaccurate testimony by their witness. When thewitness testified he visited a doctor on the day after the crime, the prosecutor turned over medicalrecords to the contrary and stipulated to the facts contained therein. Defendant had a meaningful[*2]opportunity to cross-examine the witness on this matter, andwas not prejudiced in any way (see People v Osborne, 91 NY2d 827 [1997]). ThePeople's actions were sufficient to correct the inaccuracy, which, in any event, did not concern amaterial issue. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.