Majority
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant and his codefendant, Sebastian Giraldo, were tried together and were each convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. For the reasons set forth in this Court’s decision and order entitled People v Giraldo ( 116 AD3d 711 , 712 [2014]), the Supreme Court’s mischaracterization of the contents of a particular jury note deprived defense counsel of prior meaningful notice of the contents of the note and an opportunity to suggest appropriate responses in accordance with CPL 310.30 and People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 [1991]). Accordingly, a new trial is required based on the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in accordance with the procedure set forth in People v O’Rama (see People v Giraldo, 116 AD3d at 711-712 ).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Giraldo 116 AD3d 711 at 712 p. 1024
- People v. O'Rama 78 NY2d 270 p. 1024