Court Opinion

ID: 5759179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 17:11:33.003286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:29.182734
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), dated October 28, 2005, which denied his postconviction motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for DNA testing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for DNA testing since the defendant failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him had the DNA test results been admitted into evidence at trial (see CPL 440.30 [1-a]; People v Brown, 36 AD3d 961 [2007]; People v Figueroa, 36 AD3d 458 [2007]; People v Shenouda, 307 AD2d 938 [2003]; People v Pugh, 288 AD2d 634 [2001]; People v De Oliveira, 223 AD2d 766 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.