People v. Brewer
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
However, as the People correctly concede, the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the denial of his application to recall the complainant, since the defendant sought to impeach the complainant’s credibility on a material issue in the case, rather than on a purely collateral matter (see People v Perez, 40 AD3d 1131 [2007]; cf. People v Israel, 161 AD2d 730 [1990]). Under the circumstances of this case, the error cannot be deemed harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Perez, 40 AD3d 1131 [2007]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.