People v. Jimenez

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered December 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal facilitation in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s acts established that he was acting in concert with the shooter (see, e.g., People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970 , 972; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; see also, People v Amador, 227 AD2d 186 , 187). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the People’s delay in disclosing Brady material does not warrant reversal (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ). “[A] defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial is not violated, when, as here, he is given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material * * * as evidence during his case” (People v Cortijo, 70 NY2d 868 , 870; see, People v Jagopat, 216 AD2d 583 ; People v White, 178 AD2d 674 , 675; People v Bolling, 157 AD2d 733 ).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).