You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE...

DEFENDANT’S FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM DURING THE TESTIMONY BY THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court should not have excluded defendant’s family members from the trial during the testimony of the undercover officers:

Following a Hinton hearing at which there was no testimony that defendant or any member of his family threatened or otherwise posed a threat to either of two testifying undercover officers, defense counsel requested that family members be permitted to attend the officers’ trial testimony. Although the prosecutor made no argument in opposition to this application, the court denied it, without making any supporting findings. This was error. “[A]n order of closure that does not make an exception for family members will be considered overbroad, unless the prosecution can show specific reasons why the family members must be excluded” … . We reject the People’s argument that the defense was obligated to identify specific family members who might attend the proceedings, in the absence of any request by the prosecutor or the court that it do so, as incompatible with the “presumption of openness” that applies in this context … . Moreover the court did not ask any questions to clarify which family members wanted to attend before issuing the closure order. People v Rivera, 2020 NY Slip Op 01035, First Dept 2-13-20

 

You might also like
POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT).
AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL OUT OF A WINDOW; NO ALLEGATION OF THE VIOLATION OF ANY RULE, REGULATION, CODE OR STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).
THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IS TOLLED BY FILING A CHARGE FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION WITH THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER’S ADDRESS SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO THE THERAPIST TO DETERMINE FATHER’S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CHILD’S THERAPY (FIRST DEPT).
EXPULSION OF PETITIONER-STUDENT FROM THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PROGRAM “SHOCKED [THE COURT’S] SENSE OF FAIRNESS;” PETITONER WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​
APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (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 THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL... UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S DISTRESS SIGNAL, A GROUP OF MEN NEAR THE UNDERCOVER...