You are here: / / Defendant’s Exclusion from a “Sirois” Hearing (Where...
,

Defendant’s Exclusion from a “Sirois” Hearing (Where It Was Determined a Witness Was “Practically Unavailable” Because of Threats Made to the Witness on Behalf of the Defendant) Was Reversible Error

The Second Department reversed defendant's conviction because he was excluded from a “Sirois” hearing where it was determined a witness was “practically unavailable” because of threats made by a person on behalf of the defendant.  The defendant had been allowed to hear the testimony but was not able to participate in the proceedings in any way:

“[A] defendant's absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges against him and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . The “[d]efendant was entitled to confront the witness against him at that hearing and also to be present so that he could advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness' testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . Here, the defendant was not in the courtroom and was not allowed to confer with his attorney during the hearing. Moreover, the fact that the defendant was able to hear the witness's testimony from a holding cell, and that the Supreme Court did not render a decision on the People's application until after argument was heard three days after the hearing, were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the defendant was “afforded the opportunity for meaningful participation to which he was entitled” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 00916, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


You might also like
HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO MEDICAL-PEER-REVIEW AND COMMON-INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE: COMMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF PLAINITFF-PHYSICIAN’S HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL AND MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim
DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DRIVER OF THE FIRE ENGINE RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED CAR WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN FROM A LANE TO THE LEFT OF PLAINTIFF; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE FIRE-ENGINE DRIVER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

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

Proof Presented to Grand Jury Was Sufficient to Support Allegation Defendant... Criteria for Determining the Propriety of the Termination of a Probationary...