People v. De Sousa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Sousa

79 A.D.2d 712, 434 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14115

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 712 (People v. De Sousa) 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. De Sousa, 79 A.D.2d 712, 434 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1980, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered February 10, 1976. Order affirmed. The absence of defendant and his counsel from the informal interviews conducted by the Trial Judge with two of the jurors does not mandate reversal of the judgment of conviction (see People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1; People v Andriani, 67 AD2d 20, after remand 73 AD2d 864, cert den sub nom. Boutureira v New York, 444 US 866; cf. Carlisle v County of Nassau, 64 AD2d 15; People ex rel. Wilder v Markley, 29 AD2d 542; People v O’Keefe, 281 App Div 409, affd 306 NY 619). The record shows that defendant waived any objection to the manner in which the juror interviews were conducted or any claim that his lawyer was not provided with the accurate content of those interviews. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1980, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered February 10, 1976. Order affirmed. The absence of defendant and his counsel from the informal interviews conducted by the Trial Judge with two of the jurors does not mandate reversal of the judgment of conviction (see People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1; People v Andriani, 67 AD2d 20, after remand 73 AD2d 864, cert den sub nom. Boutureira v New York, 444 US 866; cf. Carlisle v County of Nassau, 64 AD2d 15; People ex rel. Wilder v Markley, 29 AD2d 542; People v O’Keefe, 281 App Div 409, affd 306 NY 619). The record shows that defendant waived any objection to the manner in which the juror interviews were conducted or any claim that his lawyer was not provided with the accurate content of those interviews. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 712, 434 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-sousa-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack