You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE’S SANDOVAL APPLICATION WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS...
,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE’S SANDOVAL APPLICATION WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS AND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT THE JUDGE’S SUBSEQUENTLY ASKING, IN OPEN COURT AND IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, WHETHER THE DEFENSE WANTED TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION WAS SUFFICIENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that. although a discussion of the People’s Sandoval application was held in chambers when the defendant was not present, there was subsequent open-court proceeding in the defendant’s presence in which the judge offered the defense the opportunity to be heard on the application. The dissent argued the decision on the People’s application was made in chambers and the defendant was not given a meaningly opportunity to participate in a Sandoval hearing:

Defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial when Supreme Court conducted anin-chambers and off-the-record conference in his absence at which there was discussion regarding the People’s previously submitted, written Sandoval application … . We reject that contention. Although defendant was not present at the in-chambers conference, the court held a subsequent proceeding in open court in defendant’s presence, at which the court offered defendant an opportunity to be heard on the People’s application. Defense counsel declined. The court then made, and explained, its ruling on the People’s application. Under those circumstances, we conclude that defendant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate at the court’s subsequent de novo inquiry and his absence from the initial conference does not require reversal … . People v Sharp, 2023 NY Slip Op 01602, Fourth Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A Sandoval hearing is a material stage of a criminal proceeding at which the defendant must be present. Here the Sandoval application was discussed in chambers when the defendant was not present. Subsequently, in open court, in the defendant’s presence, the judge asked defense whether it wanted to be heard on the application and counsel declined. The majority held the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate. The dissent disagreed.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO CORRECTION LAW 168-A (3)(B), WAS DESIGNATED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” BASED SOLELY ON HIS OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION OF A REGISTRABLE SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE; THE CORRECTION LAW AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE EUTHANASIA OF RESPONDENT’S DOG AFTER THE DOG ATTACKED AND REPEATEDLY BIT A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD; THE DISSENTER ARGUED PETITIONERS DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEIR CHILD SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
LAW FIRM’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN SETTLED EXPLAINED.
Teacher’s Subpoena for School Records of a Student Who Testified at the Teacher’s Education Law 3020-a Proceeding Should Have Been Quashed
Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal
THE TOWN AMBULANCE PARAMEDICS DECIDED NOT TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE HOSPITAL; THAT DECISION WAS DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE ENTITLING THE TOWN TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY IN THIS MED MAL ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Separation Agreement Found Unconscionable

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

NON-RESPONDENT FATHER’S APPEAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WITH THE... THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL...