People v. Friedlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Friedlander

260 A.D.2d 221, 686 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987

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

DecidedApril 13, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 221 (People v. Friedlander) 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. Friedlander, 260 A.D.2d 221, 686 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered February 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court reporter’s parenthetical notation, “read in the context of the entire voir dire record, along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom” (People v Acevedo, [222]*222256 AD2d 162), fails to support defendant’s assertion that he or his counsel, or both, were absent from a sidebar conference with a prospective juror. Moreover, the court made it clear that it was dismissing the prospective juror for cause, and thus defendant’s presence would not have enabled him to contribute meaningfully to the proceeding (People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 28; see also, People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 379). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered February 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court reporter’s parenthetical notation, “read in the context of the entire voir dire record, along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom” (People v Acevedo, [222]*222256 AD2d 162), fails to support defendant’s assertion that he or his counsel, or both, were absent from a sidebar conference with a prospective juror. Moreover, the court made it clear that it was dismissing the prospective juror for cause, and thus defendant’s presence would not have enabled him to contribute meaningfully to the proceeding (People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 28; see also, People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 379). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 221, 686 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-friedlander-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack