People v. Tappin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tappin

264 A.D.2d 449, 695 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 449 (People v. Tappin) 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. Tappin, 264 A.D.2d 449, 695 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered November 10, 1997, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and bail jumping in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the trial by his exclusion from sidebar discussions during voir dire (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247; People v People, 223 AD2d 732). The defendant, after discussing the matter with his attorney, signed a waiver stating that he was advised of his rights and agreed to waive his right to be present at sidebar discussions during voir dire. Therefore, the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given (see, People v Varga, 88 NY2d 363; People v McGee, 208 AD2d 388). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 (D’Emic, J.), rendered November 10, 1997, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and bail jumping in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the trial by his exclusion from sidebar discussions during voir dire (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247; People v People, 223 AD2d 732). The defendant, after discussing the matter with his attorney, signed a waiver stating that he was advised of his rights and agreed to waive his right to be present at sidebar discussions during voir dire. Therefore, the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given (see, People v Varga, 88 NY2d 363; People v McGee, 208 AD2d 388). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 449, 695 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tappin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack