Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard D. DiGuglielmo, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 17 N.Y.3d 771
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard D. DiGuglielmo, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 771–773

Head Matter:
[952 NE2d 1068, 929 NYS2d 74]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard D. DiGuglielmo, Appellant.
Argued May 31, 2011;
decided June 23, 2011
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Mayer Brown LLP, New York City (Andrew H. Schapiro, Scott A. Chesin, Allison M. Stowell and Ames C. Grawert of counsel), for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco, Richard Longworth Hecht and Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Assuming that defendant made a specific request for the material alleged to be exculpatory, we find no reasonable possibility that any failure to disclose it contributed to the verdict (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990]). Moreover, we reject defendant's claim that the evidence supporting his conviction of depraved indifference murder is legally insufficient because of our decision in People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]). The standard enunciated in Feingold simply does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (see Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 588, 603-604 [2006]), and defendant's claim that such a result violates the Federal Due Process Clause is without merit (Wainwright v Stone, 414 US 21, 23-24 [1973]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.