People v. Leavy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leavy

12 A.D.3d 691, 784 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14589

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 691 (People v. Leavy) 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. Leavy, 12 A.D.3d 691, 784 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), rendered November 26, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

[692]*692As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court improperly excluded the defendant’s sister from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. Nothing in the record demonstrates, and the Supreme Court did not find, that the presence of the defendant’s sister in the courtroom posed a threat to the officer (see People v Heslop, 307 AD2d 975, 976 [2003]; People v Rivera, 281 AD2d 496 [2001]; People v Perez, 252 AD2d 593, 594 [1998]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), rendered November 26, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

[692]*692As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court improperly excluded the defendant’s sister from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. Nothing in the record demonstrates, and the Supreme Court did not find, that the presence of the defendant’s sister in the courtroom posed a threat to the officer (see People v Heslop, 307 AD2d 975, 976 [2003]; People v Rivera, 281 AD2d 496 [2001]; People v Perez, 252 AD2d 593, 594 [1998]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 691, 784 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leavy-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack