Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered May 25, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his absence from the Ventimiglia hearing (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981]) does not warrant reversal. The People sought to introduce evidence that the complaining witness had seen the defendant selling drugs on many occasions. The Supreme Court ruled that the witness could not testify that he had observed the defendant selling drugs, but that he could testify he had seen the defendant hundreds of times outside his window, that the defendant had been making noise with a group of friends, and that the witness had asked him to move on.
The first part of the ruling was decided wholly in the defendant’s favor (see People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254 , 268 [1993]) and thus, the defendant’s presence would not have contributed to the advancing of his case (see People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 , 660 [1992]; People v Tellier, 232 AD2d 509 [1996]; People v Baum, 222 AD2d 444 [1995]). The second part of the ruling involved a purely legal question of whether the witness’ prior observations of the defendant could be admitted on the issue of
Cases cited
- People v. Ventimiglia 52 NY2d 350 p. 502
- People v. Favor 82 NY2d 254 at 268 p. 502
- People v. Dokes 79 NY2d 656 at 660 p. 502
- People v. Baum 222 AD2d 444 p. 502
- People v. Bakolas 59 NY2d 51 at 55 p. 503
- People v. Munafo 50 NY2d 326 at 331 p. 503
- People v. Spotford 85 NY2d 593 at 597 p. 503