People v. Jackman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jackman

222 A.D.2d 241, 635 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 241 (People v. Jackman) 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. Jackman, 222 A.D.2d 241, 635 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 18, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third (two counts) and fifth degrees, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant forfeited his right to be present for readback of testimony where he and counsel were instructed to take an hour for lunch "and not a minute more”; the court ascertained from defense counsel that defendant understood, after consulting with counsel, that the court would proceed in his absence if he were not back on time and a note came in from the jury; and the court did not resume until an hour after it said it would (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444; compare, People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898; People v Aguilar, 177 AD2d 197, 199-200). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 18, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third (two counts) and fifth degrees, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant forfeited his right to be present for readback of testimony where he and counsel were instructed to take an hour for lunch "and not a minute more”; the court ascertained from defense counsel that defendant understood, after consulting with counsel, that the court would proceed in his absence if he were not back on time and a note came in from the jury; and the court did not resume until an hour after it said it would (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444; compare, People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898; People v Aguilar, 177 AD2d 197, 199-200). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 241, 635 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jackman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack