People v. WatsonPeople v. Watson
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the judgment should be reversed based upon the late disclosure of Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]). The material at issue was turned over to the defendant before opening statements and in sufficient time for him to use it in a meaningful fashion during cross-examination or as evidence during his case (see People v Cortijo, 70 NY2d 868 [1987]; People v Rodriguez, 281 AD2d 644 [2001]). There was no indication that a reasonable possibility existed that earlier disclosure of the material might have led to a different outcome of the trial (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]).
The Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the defendant‘s statements to law enforcement officials. A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at the time the statements were made (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Parsad, 243 AD2d 510 [1997], denial of habeas corpus aff‘d sub nom. Parsad v Geiner, 337 F3d 175 [2003], cert denied sub nom. Parsad v Fischer, 540 US 1091 [2003]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.
Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.