People v. HendersonPeople v. Henderson
We previously affirmed defendant‘s judgment of conviction, noting in part that the record was insufficient to afford meaningful review of the claimed Brady violation (People v O‘Halloran, 48 AD3d 978, 979 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 868 [2008]). We then granted defendant‘s subsequent motion for a writ of error coram nobis and reinstated the appeal to allow defendant to raise the issue of whether the withholding of statements of the victim—who was the key prosecution witness—constituted a material Brady violation.
While the failure to disclose information that affects the credibility of a key prosecution witness constitutes a Brady violation (see e.g. People v Hawes, 298 AD2d 706, 708 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 582 [2003]), we cannot agree with defendant‘s contention that the People failed to disclose the victim‘s written statement in which he admitted to certain crimes of his own, or that the People‘s failure to turn over the video recording of the police interview of the victim when he made that confession constitutes a material Brady violation requiring reversal. Even assuming that defendant‘s request for any record relating to a previous arrest, convictions or participation in dangerous, vicious, immoral, or criminal behavior by the People‘s witnesses is a specific request (see People v Scott, 88 NY2d 888, 891 [1996]; People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 70-72 [1990]; People v Sibadan, 240 AD2d 30, 34 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 861 [1998]), we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that disclosure of the video would have altered the outcome of the case (see People v Fuentes, 12 NY3d 259, 263-264 [2009]; People v De-