People v Bayard, 15 NY3d 896 (2010)

2010 NY Slip Op 08381 [15 NY3d 896]
November 17, 2010
Court of Appeals

[*1]

In the Matter of The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Tashiem Bayard, Appellant.

Argued October 21, 2010; decided November 17, 2010

People v Bayard, 63 AD3d 481, affirmed.

{**15 NY3d at 897} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. [*2]

Prior to trial in this robbery prosecution, the People turned over a police omniform system complaint report that included descriptive information relating to the crime and the perpetrators but did not contain the name of the officer that compiled that information. Defendant contends that the People’s failure to disclose the officer’s identity amounts to a Brady violation warranting reversal of his conviction. We disagree. Assuming{**15 NY3d at 898} that the omitted name had exculpatory or impeachment value, there is no reasonable possibility that, if the officer’s identity had been discovered, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]). The trial court allowed the defense to make significant use of the unsigned report during cross-examination of the complainant and lead detective and, as an ameliorative measure, permitted the defense to challenge the complainant’s identification by admitting a description provided by a nontestifying eyewitness.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.