
    James KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert ERCOLE, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-2214-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 7, 2010.
    Matthew Scott Trokenheim, Esq. (Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Joseph M. Nur-sey, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, New York, N.Y. on the brief), Arent Fox LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Hannah E.C. Moore (Joseph N. Ferden-zi, Karen Swiger on the brief) for Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County, for Appellees.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, and JANE A. RESTANI , Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

James King petitions for a writ of ha-beas corpus on the ground that the prosecution withheld material impeachment information related to a key prosecution witness, Mario Lopez, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). “[T]he government’s failure to disclose favorable information will result in an order of retrial if the undisclosed information is ‘material,’ within the exacting standard of materiality established by the governing case law.” United States v. Spinelli, 551 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir.2008).

“[A] new trial is generally not required when the testimony of the witness is corroborated by other testimony, or when the suppressed impeachment evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to impeach a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable.” United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1210 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Both of these conditions were met here, as the Appellate Division ruled. Accordingly, that ruling was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of established federal law. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Finding no merit in King’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . Lopez's testimony was corroborated in relevant part by another prosecution witness, Michael Cooks. As to Lopez, the prosecution failed to disclose a (purported) state cooperation agreement dealing with state car-theft charges. Since Lopez admitted his involvement in a separate murder-for-hire incident to federal prosecutors at the same time he signed the purported state cooperation agreement, that document gave Lopez no incremental motive to lie that the defense was unable to adequately bring to the jury's attention.
     