People v. Buonincontri

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Buonincontri

843 N.E.2d 1143, 6 N.Y.3d 726, 810 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3346

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 15, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The defendant was informed on the record that she had the right to be present during questioning of a prospective juror concerning the ability to be fair and impartial. The Appellate Division *727 properly determined that defendant failed to present an adequate record to overcome the presumption of regularity (see People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The defendant was informed on the record that she had the right to be present during questioning of a prospective juror concerning the ability to be fair and impartial. The Appellate Division *727 properly determined that defendant failed to present an adequate record to overcome the presumption of regularity (see People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Buonincontri, 843 N.E.2d 1143, 6 N.Y.3d 726, 810 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3346 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

843 N.E.2d 1143 (People v. Buonincontri) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related