People v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taylor

201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The absence of defendant from the in-chambers Sandoval conference violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254; People v [906]*906Alexander, 80 NY2d 801; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). Because the court’s in-chambers Sandoval ruling was not entirely favorable, defendant’s absence from that conference cannot be viewed as wholly superfluous (see, People v Favor, supra). Because there must be a new trial, we note that it was error for the prosecutor to question defendant regarding his pre-arrest failure to call the police regarding the incident (see, People v De George, 73 NY2d 614, 619-620; People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454).

Defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The absence of defendant from the in-chambers Sandoval conference violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254; People v [906]*906Alexander, 80 NY2d 801; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). Because the court’s in-chambers Sandoval ruling was not entirely favorable, defendant’s absence from that conference cannot be viewed as wholly superfluous (see, People v Favor, supra). Because there must be a new trial, we note that it was error for the prosecutor to question defendant regarding his pre-arrest failure to call the police regarding the incident (see, People v De George, 73 NY2d 614, 619-620; People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454).

Defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taylor-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack