People v. Almendares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Almendares

160 A.D.2d 947

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

DecidedApril 23, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 947 (People v. Almendares) 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 v. Almendares, 160 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered June 28, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

As conceded by the People, and we agree, the trial court abridged the right of the defendant to a public trial by summarily determining that the courtroom would be closed during the testimony of the People’s purported undercover witness without first conducting an inquiry into the need for such closure (see, People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, cert denied 444 US 946).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Rubin, J. P., Fiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered June 28, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

As conceded by the People, and we agree, the trial court abridged the right of the defendant to a public trial by summarily determining that the courtroom would be closed during the testimony of the People’s purported undercover witness without first conducting an inquiry into the need for such closure (see, People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, cert denied 444 US 946).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Rubin, J. P., Fiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-almendares-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack