You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION...

DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s absence from sidebar conferences did not require reversal:

Defendant contends that the court violated the rule in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992] …) when it conducted several sidebar conferences in his absence and that reversal is required with respect to two of those conferences. We disagree with defendant that reversal is required as a result of any violation of defendant’s Antommarchi rights. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see CPL 260.20 …), including the sidebar questioning of a prospective juror when the purpose of the questioning is “intended to search out a prospective juror’s bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” … . Nevertheless, “reversal is not required when, because of the matter then at issue before the court or the practical result of the determination of that matter, the defendant’s presence could not have afforded him or her any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome” … . In determining whether the defendant’s presence could have afforded him or her such an opportunity, the test is whether the record negates the possibility that the defendant “could have provided valuable input on his [or her] counsel’s apparently discretionary choice to excuse those venire persons” … . Thus, reversal is not required where the defendant’s attorney does not exercise a choice to exclude a prospective juror, such as where a prospective juror is excused for cause or where the People have exercised a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror … .

… [W]e conclude that defendant had no opportunity to provide any input that might have affected the outcome regarding the relevant prospective jurors. People v Wilkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
Municipalities (Counties) Are Not “Persons” and Therefore Cannot Challenge a Statute on Due Process Grounds
Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent
ALTHOUGH FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAD NOT PROCURED HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS UNDER-SIX-MONTH-OLD SON, HE DEMONSTRATED HE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD; THEREFORE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS WAS REQUIRED AND CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO HIM; THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER’S FAILURE TO PROCURE HOUSING RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CONTEMPT FINDING AND THE $535,000 FINE WERE BASED ON AN ORDER WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A CANISIUS COLLEGE STUDENT IN 2020, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT BASED ON THE SHIFT FROM IN-PERSON TO REMOTE LEARNING BECAUSE OF COVID (FOURTH DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005 SURGERY AND THE 2010 SURGERY WERE DISCRETE EVENTS; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly

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

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL... IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY...