People v. Ballard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ballard

201 A.D.2d 967, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 967 (People v. Ballard) 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. Ballard, 201 A.D.2d 967, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Onondaga County Court for a reconstruction hearing (see, People v Ballard, 189 AD2d 340, appeal dismissed sub nom. People v Walker, 81 NY2d 1065) in accordance with our decision in People v Mitchell (189 AD2d 337, lv dismissed sub nom. People v Walker, 81 NY2d 1065; see also, People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906). The record of the reconstruction hearing does not support a finding that defendant was present at the Sandoval conference and, therefore, reversal is required (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662; see also, People v Cruz, 81 NY2d 738; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995). Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s presence would not have been "superfluous” (People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872, 874; see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present— [968]*968Balio, J. P., Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Apr. 15, 1994.]

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Onondaga County Court for a reconstruction hearing (see, People v Ballard, 189 AD2d 340, appeal dismissed sub nom. People v Walker, 81 NY2d 1065) in accordance with our decision in People v Mitchell (189 AD2d 337, lv dismissed sub nom. People v Walker, 81 NY2d 1065; see also, People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906). The record of the reconstruction hearing does not support a finding that defendant was present at the Sandoval conference and, therefore, reversal is required (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662; see also, People v Cruz, 81 NY2d 738; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995). Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s presence would not have been "superfluous” (People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872, 874; see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present— [968]*968Balio, J. P., Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Apr. 15, 1994.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 967, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ballard-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack