From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gebrosky

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 19, 1992
607 N.E.2d 797 (N.Y. 1992)

Opinion

Argued October 15, 1992

Decided November 19, 1992


Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Corriero, J. Paul Lewis, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Faith Crouchley and Jay M. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

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

Defendant's absence from a material part of his Sandoval hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Beasley, 80 N.Y.2d 981; People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656). The issue is reviewable, despite defendant's failure to object, and the People's contention that this case involves exceptional circumstances rendering defendant's presence "superfluous" is unavailing (People v Dokes, supra, at 662).

Acting Chief Judge SIMONS and Judges KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., BELLACOSA and SMITH concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Gebrosky

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 19, 1992
607 N.E.2d 797 (N.Y. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Gebrosky

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH GEBROSKY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 19, 1992

Citations

607 N.E.2d 797 (N.Y. 1992)
607 N.E.2d 797
592 N.Y.S.2d 650

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…