People v. Russell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant’s absence during a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) warrants reversal (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976; see also, People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073; cf., People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678, lv denied 80 NY2d 929).
The rule enunciated in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. SandovalNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. AntommarchiNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. DokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. BergerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. VargasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. MoodyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- People v. LanauxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- People v. ThomasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.