From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 17, 1992
609 N.E.2d 120 (N.Y. 1992)

Opinion

Argued November 20, 1992

Decided December 17, 1992

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Joseph A. Mazur, J.

William B. Carney, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein, for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, Bronx (Daniel S. Ratner and Susan L. Valle of counsel), for respondent, and for New York State District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae. Anthony J. Ferrara, New York City, for Association of the Bar of the City of New York, amicus curiae.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The trial court improperly conducted a Sandoval hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) in defendant's absence, requiring a new trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v Gebrosky, 80 N.Y.2d 995). It is therefore unnecessary to consider defendant's remaining contention.

Acting Chief Judge SIMONS and Judges KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur in memorandum; Judge SMITH taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Cruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 17, 1992
609 N.E.2d 120 (N.Y. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Cruz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERTO CRUZ, Also…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 17, 1992

Citations

609 N.E.2d 120 (N.Y. 1992)
609 N.E.2d 120
593 N.Y.S.2d 767

Citing Cases

People v. Favor

We also held that a violation of this right ordinarily requires reversal even in the absence of a timely…

People v. Wiley

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted…