You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS...

DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS BEING DELIVERED; DEFENDANT SHOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUED TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, over a dissent, determined the defendant should not have been removed form the courtroom without first issuing a warning. The defendant was removed after disrupting the court as the verdict was being delivered:

After the jury foreperson announced “guilty” on the final charge (count 4) of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the clerk proceeded to read back the verdict in order to inquire collectively of the jurors whether such was their verdict (see CPL 310.80). Before the jurors could respond, the defendant disrupted the proceeding by using profanity and declaring his innocence. The trial court immediately directed that the court officers remove the defendant from the courtroom. The defendant repeated his protestation and again the court directed that he be removed from the courtroom. Three more times the defendant either proclaimed his innocence or uttered a one-word profanity, and in each instance the court responded by directing that the defendant be removed from the courtroom. At some point during the foregoing exchanges, the defendant was apparently removed from the courtroom. The clerk read the verdict again, and made the requisite inquiry, to which the jurors responded. The defendant’s counsel thereafter requested that the jury be polled … . The jury was polled and the verdict was entered. …

A criminal defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial is encompassed within the confrontation clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions … and the New York Criminal Procedure Law … . The defendant’s outbursts and removal from the courtroom occurred during a material stage of the trial, as the jury had not yet been polled and the verdict had therefore not yet been entered … . However, “[a] defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute,” and “[t]he defendant may be removed from the courtroom if, after being warned by the trial court, the disruptive conduct continues” … . People v Antoine, 2020 NY Slip Op 07907, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

You might also like
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE WILL BEQUEATHED THE REAL PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF ALONE; THE DEFENDANT ADMINSTRATOR DREW UP A DEED WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AS JOINT TENANTS; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE DEED IS VOID AB INITIO OR VOIDABLE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEED WAS VOIDABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED WHEN SHE COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME; THE GAME WAS DEEMED AGE-APPROPRIATE AND THE SUPERVISION WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (SECOND 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

IN THIS ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AFFIDAVITS OF CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INFORMATION... EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION...