People v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dean

188 A.D.2d 1082, 592 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1082 (People v. Dean) 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. Dean, 188 A.D.2d 1082, 592 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Reversal is required because defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing deprived him of his constitutional right to be present during all material stages of the trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 [decided herewith]). The fact that the court made its Sandoval ruling in defendant’s presence is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s right to be present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995, revg 181 AD2d 692; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present-Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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: Reversal is required because defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing deprived him of his constitutional right to be present during all material stages of the trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 [decided herewith]). The fact that the court made its Sandoval ruling in defendant’s presence is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s right to be present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995, revg 181 AD2d 692; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present-Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1082, 592 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dean-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack