| People v Benloss |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03852 [117 AD3d 1071] |
| May 28, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gary Benloss, Appellant. |
Ronald Paul Hart, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Jobloveand Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Gary, J.), entered November 30, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, hismotion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Collini, J.),rendered November 20, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of thedefendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 which was to vacate a judgment ofconviction on the ground that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel. The parties' submissions in support of and in opposition to the defendant'smotion established that the defendant received meaningful representation at trial(see CPL 440.30 [4]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Majors, 59 AD3d738, 739 [2009]; cf. Peoplev Jenkins, 84 AD3d 1403, 1409 [2011]).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch ofthe defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment on theground that the prosecution committed a Brady violation (see Brady vMaryland, 373 US 83 [1963]), by failing to disclose that one of its witnesses at trialhad a criminal charge pending against him. Based upon the parties' submissions insupport of and in opposition to the defendant's motion, there was no reasonablepossibility that such nondisclosure affected the outcome of the trial (see People v Fuentes, 12 NY3d259, 263 [2009]; People vGraves, 62 AD3d 900, 901 [2009]; cf. People v Johnson, 107 AD3d 1161, 1166 [2013]; cf. also People v Garrett, 106AD3d 929, 931 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contentions were either previously determined on themerits on the direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see CPL 440.10 [2][c]; see also People vBenloss, 60 AD3d 686 [2009]), or sufficiently appeared on the record "to havepermitted" adequate review thereof on the direct appeal (CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; seePeople v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100, 103 [1986]; People v Kandekore, 300 AD2d318, 319 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of thedefendant's motion (see CPL 440.10 [2]; People v Kandekore, 300 AD2dat 319). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.