People v. Lozado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lozado

300 A.D.2d 147, 751 N.Y.S.2d 728, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12466

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 147 (People v. Lozado) 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. Lozado, 300 A.D.2d 147, 751 N.Y.S.2d 728, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered August 26, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of intimidating a witness in the first degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of 10 to 20 years and 3¥2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Defendant’s absence from an off-the-record conference of [148]*148which the subject was the scope and substance of a witness’s identification testimony, i.e., a material stage of the trial at which defendant’s presence would have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges, requires reversal of his conviction (People v Casiano, 294 AD2d 277 [reversing conviction of codefendant on grounds of his absence from same conference], lv denied 98 NY2d 767). Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered August 26, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of intimidating a witness in the first degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of 10 to 20 years and 3¥2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Defendant’s absence from an off-the-record conference of [148]*148which the subject was the scope and substance of a witness’s identification testimony, i.e., a material stage of the trial at which defendant’s presence would have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges, requires reversal of his conviction (People v Casiano, 294 AD2d 277 [reversing conviction of codefendant on grounds of his absence from same conference], lv denied 98 NY2d 767). Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 147, 751 N.Y.S.2d 728, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lozado-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack