From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smythe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 12, 1995

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


Ordered that the appeals are held in abeyance, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was present at a Sandoval hearing conducted on October 21, 22, and 26, 1992. The Supreme Court, Queens County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

Because the record is unclear as to whether the defendant was present during the Sandoval hearing held on October 21, 22, and 26, 1992, and because the decision rendered was not "wholly favorable" to the defendant, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine the issue (see, People v. Michalek, 194 A.D.2d 568, affd 82 N.Y.2d 906; People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872; People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v. Parchment, 203 A.D.2d 595; People v. Farrell, 201 A.D.2d 665).

We reach no other issues at this juncture. Mangano, P.J., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smythe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Smythe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARTH SMYTHE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 12, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 526

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,…