People ex rel. Nalo v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Nalo v. Sullivan

126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41731

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 589 (People ex rel. Nalo v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Nalo v. Sullivan, 126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered February 21, 1986, which denied the writ and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to be present at every stage of his trial. After the verdict was rendered and the jury was polled, the petitioner was escorted from the courtroom and did not return until after the jury was discharged.

A defendant’s presence is required only where his absence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend himself (see, People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1, 5). Here, the verdict had already been rendered; therefore, such concerns were not [590]*590implicated. While the petitioner maintains that he could have conferred with counsel and raised a repugnancy claim had he been permitted to stay, this argument is uncompelling because the verdict was not repugnant (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the writ and dismissed the petition. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered February 21, 1986, which denied the writ and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to be present at every stage of his trial. After the verdict was rendered and the jury was polled, the petitioner was escorted from the courtroom and did not return until after the jury was discharged.

A defendant’s presence is required only where his absence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend himself (see, People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1, 5). Here, the verdict had already been rendered; therefore, such concerns were not [590]*590implicated. While the petitioner maintains that he could have conferred with counsel and raised a repugnancy claim had he been permitted to stay, this argument is uncompelling because the verdict was not repugnant (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the writ and dismissed the petition. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 589, 510 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-nalo-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack