From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bazil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Brien, J.).


Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the question of whether the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

The defendant contends that he was not present during the Sandoval hearing and that, therefore, his conviction must be reversed (see, People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254). The record is silent as to whether the defendant was present. Since the defendant's presence at the Sandoval hearing would not have been merely "superfluous" because the Sandoval ruling was not "wholly favorable" to him (see, People v. Favor, supra), the threshold factual issue as to the defendant's presence or absence at the Sandoval hearing must be resolved before this appeal is decided. Thus, the appeal is held in abeyance and the case is remitted to the trial court for a hearing on this matter (see, People v. Law, 199 A.D.2d 282). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bazil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Bazil

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH BAZIL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 537

Citing Cases

People v. Dewitt

Since the defendant's presence at the Sandoval hearing would not have been merely "`superfluous'" because the…

People v. Brown

It is not clear from the record whether the defendant was present during the off-the-record Sandoval hearing,…