People v. Hogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hogan

251 A.D.2d 43, 672 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 43 (People v. Hogan) 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. Hogan, 251 A.D.2d 43, 672 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered August 17, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted escape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Review of defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to be present at robing room discussions with prospective jurors is precluded, since defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record showing any such absence (see, People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, 325; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772). The existing record, viewed as whole, establishes defendant’s presence at the robing room proceedings in question (see, People v Styles, 237 AD2d 206, lv denied 90 NY2d 864; People v Rivera, 225 AD2d 360, lv denied 88 NY2d 941). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered August 17, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted escape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Review of defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to be present at robing room discussions with prospective jurors is precluded, since defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record showing any such absence (see, People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, 325; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772). The existing record, viewed as whole, establishes defendant’s presence at the robing room proceedings in question (see, People v Styles, 237 AD2d 206, lv denied 90 NY2d 864; People v Rivera, 225 AD2d 360, lv denied 88 NY2d 941). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 43, 672 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hogan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack