People v. James

252 A.D.2d 979, 674 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14603
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 8, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Mem[980]*980orandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing on the issue whether defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing (People v James, 245 AD2d 1115). The record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court’s determination that the Sandoval hearing was held outside of defendant’s presence (see, People v Evans, 232 AD2d 424, lv denied 89 NY2d 921). Because the Sandoval ruling was not entirely in defendant’s favor, the judgment of conviction must be reversed (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267, rearg denied 83 NY2d 801). In view of our decision, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present— Lawton, J. P., Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. James, 252 A.D.2d 979, 674 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

252 A.D.2d 979 (People v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pitsley
4 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Milland v. Goord
264 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)