You are here: / / Defendant Implicitly and Explicitly Waived His Right to Be Present During...
,

Defendant Implicitly and Explicitly Waived His Right to Be Present During Side-Bar Conferences

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined defendant had implicitly and explicitly waived his right to be present during side-bar conferences (the “Antommarchi” right). The implicit waiver was the defendant’s inaction after the trial judge informed him he was welcome to attend the side-bar conferences. And the explicit waiver was defense counsel’s statement to the judge, which was made outside the hearing of the defendant, that the defendant has waived his right to attend the conferences:

Defendant waived his Antommarchi right both implicitly and explicitly. He did so implicitly when, after hearing the trial judge say that he was “welcome to attend” the bench conferences, he chose not to do so. And he waived it explicitly by his lawyer’s statement to the court. People v Flinn, 20, CtApp 2-25-14

You might also like
Failure to Read Jury Notes to Counsel Before Calling in the Jury Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error, Therefore, Must Be Preserved by Objection
Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW (CT APP).
Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different Victims Named
Plaintiff’s Proof of Reason for Termination of Treatment Was Sufficient to Get By Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion
Opposition to Additur or Remittitur After First Trial Can Not Be Appealed After Second Trial
In Cases Not Involving Death or Bodily Injury Arising from an Accident, Whether a Notice of Disclaimer is Timely Is Governed by Common Law Waiver and Estoppel Principles, Not by the Provisions of Insurance law 3420
Absent a Clear Due Process Violation, the Correct Remedy for Failure to Explain Why a Witness Requested by the Inmate Did Not Testify (a Rule Violation) Is a New Hearing, Not Expungement

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether a “Special Relationship” Had Developed Such that... Termination of Petitioner’s Tenancy Based Upon An Isolated Angry Outburst...