John Giuca, a Brooklyn man convicted more than a decade ago of murdering a New Jersey college student, was denied a new trial on those charges Tuesday by the state's highest court in New York.

The Court of Appeals said in the decision that, even if prosecutors failed to disclose material that may have changed Giuca's defense, the outcome of his initial trial likely would have been the same.

“We hold that, to the extent there was any suppression of impeachment material, there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different if the information at issue had been disclosed,” Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in the court's opinion.

Attorneys for Giuca had argued before the Court of Appeals at the end of April that a key witness who testified against him at trial, John Avitto, only did so to avoid incarceration for violating the terms of a drug treatment program.

Giuca was represented by Mark Bederow, a criminal defense attorney from Manhattan. Bederow said when reached by phone on Tuesday that he was “perplexed” by the decision, which he argued could set a troubling precedent for defendants in similar cases.

“I respect the Court of Appeals' ruling, but I also think it's a ruling that I don't think bodes well beyond Giuca,” Bederow said. “The kind of misconduct that occurred in this case, if the answer is that it's cumulative and there's no remedy for that type of conduct, I think it encourages overzealous prosecutors to engage in gamesmanship.”

Bederow said the case likely isn't over for Giuca. He's considering filing another motion at the trial court for a new trial based on evidence unearthed last year related to the case. The process for having such a motion considered again by the state's highest court will likely take years, if Giuca decides to go that route.

A spokesman for the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Giuca, said the decision on Tuesday could help bring peace to the family of the victim, Mark Fisher.

“We are pleased that the state's highest court recognized that this defendant received a fair trial, is in fact guilty and that his conviction should stand,” the spokesman said. “Mark Fisher was 19 years old when he was murdered in cold blood and his loved ones have continued to suffer over the years. We hope that today's decision, affirming that justice was done in this case, will afford them some peace.”

DiFiore wrote in the decision Tuesday that there was no evidence prosecutors made an agreement with Avitto in exchange for favorable treatment in an unrelated burglary case. If such an agreement had been made, whether it was tacit or not, prosecutors would be obligated to disclose that information to the defense. But that wasn't the case here, DiFiore wrote.

“Nonetheless, as the 440 record demonstrates, there was no deal between the People and the witness and the witness was not offered any promises or assurances in reference to his burglary case,” DiFiore wrote. “That type of understanding, or the making of any assurances in this regard creating an expectation of some benefit, was plainly absent.”

Bederow argued that there were signs of such an agreement, even if it wasn't spelled out in front of a judge. The same prosecutor on Giuca's case accompanied Avitto to court when he was accused of violating the terms of a drug treatment program. Avitto wasn't remanded at the time, despite multiple violations.

Associate Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in a dissenting opinion that prosecutors had an obligation to provide the defense with information that may have supported arguments against Avitto's testimony. Evidence showed that prosecutors were in contact with officials from Avitto's drug treatment program to monitor his status, for example.

“Defendant's trial counsel made a specific request and there is no dispute that the prosecutor suppressed information about her involvement and her office's communications with [Avitto's] drug program administrators that could have been used to impeach [Avitto] and suggest [Avitto] was motivated to fabricate testimony to gain a benefit,” Rivera said.

She argued that, if prosecutors had told the defense about their involvement in Avitto's burglary case and court appearances, the jury might not have convicted Giuca in the first place.

“This undisclosed impeachment evidence was qualitatively different — not merely reflecting on [Avitto's] overall credibility but providing a specific, concrete reason for [Avitto] to lie in the hopes of receiving ongoing favorable attention from the District Attorney's Office,” Rivera wrote.

Rivera was the lone dissenting judge. Associate Judges Leslie Stein, Michael Garcia, Rowan Wilson, and Paul Feinman signed onto the majority opinion with DiFiore. Associate Judge Eugene Fahey took no part in the case.