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
Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim
ALTHOUGH THE TOWN HIRED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A VACANT HOUSE, THE TOWN WAS NOT AN OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER.
THE MOTION COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ADMITTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT A COUNTER STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Right of First Refusal Not Triggered by Partition Action
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, ASKING DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE CAR AND PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID “SAFETY REASONS” CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL DETENTION WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PETITIONER-SEX-OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH 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

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...