People v. Carey

187 A.D.2d 942, 593 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13938
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although defendant had the right to be present during the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656), the record supports a finding that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be present (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 140; cf., People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941). Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach that issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Demott, 178 AD2d 935, lv denied 79 NY2d 946). In any event, the comments represented a fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see, People v Price, 144 AD2d 1013, lv denied 73 NY2d 895). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Carey, 187 A.D.2d 942, 593 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

187 A.D.2d 942 (People v. Carey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Brockenshire
197 A.D.2d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)