People v. Bretti
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Reome (N.Y. 2010)
- People v. Stern (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Pagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Pagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Finley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Vargas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Finkelstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Riggins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Deoleo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Dominic Bretti v. Robert H. Kuhlman, Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility (2d Cir. 1997)
- People v. Breland (N.Y. 1994)
- People v. Jermott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Steinberg (N.Y. 1992)
- People v. Rachles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Dym (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Diamond (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Sargente (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
At defendant’s trial an accomplice, Mastracco, testified at length as to defendant’s role in orchestrating Dawn Grillo’s murder. The People introduced a taped conversation between Mastracco and defendant, for the purpose of corroborating Mastracco’s testimony (CPL 60.22). Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence as equivocal. Even though subject to an innocent interpretation, the taped conversation " ' "so harmonize[d] with the accomplice’s narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between the defendant and the crime.” ’ ” (People v Kohut, 30 NY2d 183, 194, quoting People v Morhouse, 21 NY2d 66, 74; see also, People v Farruggia, 61 NY2d 775, 777.)
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.