Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request to introduce the grand jury testimony of a witness who had since become unavailable to testify at trial. Evidence of this type “must be admitted when it is material, exculpatory and has sufficient indicia of reliability” (People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 , 286 [2004]). Although the unavailable witness’s testimony did carry sufficient indicia of reliability (see People v Robinson, 89 NY2d 648 , 656-657 [1997]; People v Arce, 309 AD2d 1191 , 1192 [2003]), it was nevertheless properly excluded by the trial court because, even if believed, it was neither material nor exculpatory (see People v Robinson, supra at 654-655 ; People v Douglas, 304 AD2d 458 , 459 [2003]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Robinson 89 NY2d 648 at 656-657 p. 722