People v. Durda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Durda

259 A.D.2d 996, 703 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 996 (People v. Durda) 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. Durda, 259 A.D.2d 996, 703 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record does not indicate whether defendant was present at a Ventimiglia proceeding held off the record. Because the outcome of the proceeding was not entirely favorable to defendant, we cannot conclude from this record that defendant’s presence would have been superfluous (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267, rearg denied 83 NY2d 801). We therefore remit, the matter to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing (see, People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906, 907; People v Baxter, 216 AD2d 931; People v Johnson, 206 AD2d 874, 875). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record does not indicate whether defendant was present at a Ventimiglia proceeding held off the record. Because the outcome of the proceeding was not entirely favorable to defendant, we cannot conclude from this record that defendant’s presence would have been superfluous (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267, rearg denied 83 NY2d 801). We therefore remit, the matter to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing (see, People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906, 907; People v Baxter, 216 AD2d 931; People v Johnson, 206 AD2d 874, 875). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 996, 703 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-durda-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack