From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Frye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1993
192 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 20, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.).


Inasmuch as defendant could not be produced because he had broken his jaw and was being treated in the hospital, his presence was not required when the trial court instructed the jury that there would be a delay in responding to its request for a readback of certain testimony (People v Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26). To the extent that defendant now asserts that the court should have instructed the jury to cease deliberations, the argument is unpreserved, defendant having acquiesced in the procedure employed by the trial court (supra).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be unpreserved or without merit.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Frye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1993
192 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Frye

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EARL FRYE, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 373

Citing Cases

People v. Alvarez

The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were fair comments upon the evidence, did not exceed…