Legal Opinion
People v. Hampton
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 4, 2013PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Read, J.
We hold that Judiciary Law § 21 does not bar a substitute judge from deciding a question of law presented in a motion argued orally before another judge so long as a transcript or recording of the prior argument is available for review, and “the substitute indicates on the record the requisite familiarity with the proceedings and no undue prejudice occurs to the defendant or the People” (People v Thompson, 90 NY2d 615, 621 [1997]). Put another way, section 21 does not mandate a mistrial or that the pending motion be reargued orally in front of the substitute judge.
*280I…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. CarterNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. CalabriaNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- People v. PradoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- People v. GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- People v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- People v. ThomasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. AllardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.