People v. Babb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Babb

226 A.D.2d 469, 640 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526

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

DecidedApril 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 469 (People v. Babb) 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. Babb, 226 A.D.2d 469, 640 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered April 18,1994, convicting him of rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[470]*470Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be present at a material stage of the trial was not violated when, during a pretrial, in camera hearing in the presence of defense counsel but in the defendant’s absence, the court questioned a potential witness about her own reluctance to testify at trial, and about her reluctance to allow her 12-year-old son to testify at trial (see, People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 455; People v Ross, 205 AD2d 645, 646; People v Martinez, 204 AD2d 489; People v Harrison, 181 AD2d 743, 744). "Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered April 18,1994, convicting him of rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[470]*470Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be present at a material stage of the trial was not violated when, during a pretrial, in camera hearing in the presence of defense counsel but in the defendant’s absence, the court questioned a potential witness about her own reluctance to testify at trial, and about her reluctance to allow her 12-year-old son to testify at trial (see, People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 455; People v Ross, 205 AD2d 645, 646; People v Martinez, 204 AD2d 489; People v Harrison, 181 AD2d 743, 744). "Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 469, 640 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-babb-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack