People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortega

209 A.D.2d 225, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 225 (People v. Ortega) 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. Ortega, 209 A.D.2d 225, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered April 23, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of kidnapping in the second degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing defendant to three concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, and a concurrent term of 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to be present during the impaneling of the jury pursuant to CPL 260.20 was not violated because of his absence during robing room discussions when the attorneys advanced the legal basis for their challenges for cause and identified their peremptory challenges. Defendant’s presence in the robing room was not required because the discus[226]*226sion there was "a mere preliminary advisement of the court of challenges later effectuated in open court in the presence of defendant and thus did not constitute a material part of the trial” (People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 473). In addition, we note that defendant had the opportunity to consult with his attorney before challenges were presented to the court by counsel, and thereafter indicated through his counsel on the record that the chosen jurors were satisfactory. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered April 23, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of kidnapping in the second degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing defendant to three concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, and a concurrent term of 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to be present during the impaneling of the jury pursuant to CPL 260.20 was not violated because of his absence during robing room discussions when the attorneys advanced the legal basis for their challenges for cause and identified their peremptory challenges. Defendant’s presence in the robing room was not required because the discus[226]*226sion there was "a mere preliminary advisement of the court of challenges later effectuated in open court in the presence of defendant and thus did not constitute a material part of the trial” (People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 473). In addition, we note that defendant had the opportunity to consult with his attorney before challenges were presented to the court by counsel, and thereafter indicated through his counsel on the record that the chosen jurors were satisfactory. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 225, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortega-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack