You are here: / / A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM...
,

A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not responding to a note from the jury:

… [A] new trial is required based upon the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 279). CPL 310.30 “imposes two responsibilities on trial courts upon receipt of a substantive note from a deliberating jury: the court must provide counsel with meaningful notice of the content of the note, and the court must provide a meaningful response to the jury” … . Where a trial court fails to fulfill its responsibility to provide meaningful notice of the content of the note, “a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is . . . required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, the jury submitted a note requesting to view a specific portion of surveillance video taken from the victim’s building. The Supreme Court failed to notify the parties regarding the existence of the note, failed to read the contents of the note into the record, and failed to respond to the note. People v Everett, 2021 NY Slip Op 00575, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

You might also like
TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Release Standing Alone Warrants Summary Judgment
THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
Testimony by the Vehicle Owner that His Vehicle Was “Missing” at the Time of the Accident Did Not Overcome the Statutory Presumption the Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent at the Time of the Accident
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE ICE CONDITION IN THE PARKING LOT AND WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (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

THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;”... DEFENDANT TOOK THE GUN FROM THE VICTIM AND KILLED THE VICTIM IN SELF DEFENSE;...