You are here: / / DISABLED, ILL DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR REMOTELY BY...

DISABLED, ILL DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR REMOTELY BY VIDEO AT TRIAL.

The First Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the trial court should have allowed the disabled and ill defendant to appear at trial remotely by video. Contrary to the trial court's reasoning, the prosecutor's consent to the procedure was not required:

… [T]he court erred in believing that CPL article 182 restricted its authority to use video conferencing to effectuate a defendant's right to be present at trial. “Although the Legislature has primary authority to regulate court procedure, the Constitution permits the courts latitude to adopt procedures consistent with general practice as provided by statute,” and “[b]y enacting Judiciary Law § 2-b(3), the Legislature has explicitly authorized the courts' use of innovative procedures where necessary to carry into effect the powers and jurisdiction possessed by [the court]” * * *

… [W]e conclude that where the court essentially accepted defendant's claims of extreme pain and physical distress, where the alternative of electronic appearance was actually available based on the court's own efforts, where it was not employed only because the court wrongly believed that it lacked the required discretion … , and where the accommodations actually offered by the court were far less efficacious, the court, despite the best intentions, failed to reasonably accommodate defendant's medical concerns … . In these circumstances, defendant's waiver of the right to be present was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . People v Krieg, 2016 NY Slip Op 04134, 1st Dept 5-31-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DISABLED, ILL DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR REMOTELY BY VIDEO AT TRIAL)/VIDEO (CRIMINAL TRIAL, (DISABLED, ILL DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR REMOTELY BY VIDEO AT TRIAL)

You might also like
THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS NURSING-HOME MALPRACTICE CASE, BUT THE JUDGE DID NOT FIRST DETERMINE PLAINTIFF HAD SOME LEVEL OF COGNITIVE AWARENESS; THE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CRITERIA ARE THE SAME FOR MALPRACTICE AND FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2801-D; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
​DEFENDANT DAWSON FELL ON PLAINTIFF DURING A DANCE HOSTED BY DEFENDANT NON-PROFIT, LENOX HILL; PLAINTIFF SUED LENOX HILL ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE DANCE; LENOX HILL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF AND DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A RAISED MANHOLE COVER, EXPOSED WHEN THE ROAD SURFACE AROUND THE MANHOLE WAS MILLED IN PREPARATION FOR REPAVING, CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY THE CITY AND WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A PLASTIC SHEET PLACED OVER AN ESCALATOR TO PROTECT IT FROM DRIPPING PAINT; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION DISMISSED; THE PLASTIC COVER WAS NOT A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE; AND THE PLASTIC COVER WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

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 EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO REAR-END COLLISION. COURT’S LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATION AWARD SUCCINCTLY STATE...