Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Gebrosky 80 N.Y.2d 995

← Cases

People v. Gebrosky

80 N.Y.2d 995 Court N.Y. Decision date 1992-11-19 English

Contents

Majority

p. 995
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Gebrosky, Appellant.
Argued October 15,1992;
decided November 19, 1992
p. 996
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
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.

OPINION OF THE COURT

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 NY2d 371 ) violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 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.

Cases cited