People v. Andrew, 804 N.E.2d 399 (NY 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Andrew, 804 N.E.2d 399 (NY 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2004–2013 · …failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings at p. 547 ✓ Topic ↗
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzales
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention in his pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that he failed to satisfy his burden of coming forward with substantial evidence that he was absent from a material stage of the trial (see People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Chacon, 11 AD3d 906, 907 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 755 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzales
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention in his pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that he failed to satisfy his burden of coming forward with substantial evidence that he was absent from a material stage of the trial (see People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Chacon, 11 AD3d 906, 907 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 755 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pittman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Based upon the record before us, we conclude that defendant “failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings” (People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pittman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Based upon the record before us, we conclude that defendant “failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings” (People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Peters
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here the defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity or otherwise establish that he was absent from the courtroom during the supplemental instructions (see People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d at 48 ; People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Bogan, 78 AD3d 855 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Peters
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here the defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity or otherwise establish that he was absent from the courtroom during the supplemental instructions (see People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d at 48 ; People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Bogan, 78 AD3d 855 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mims
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In addition, the record does not indicate that the defendant was not present at the proceeding at which the People’s plea offers were communicated to his trial counsel, and he failed to submit substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to trial proceedings in support of his claim that his right to be present at the proceeding was violated (see People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]; People v Bogan, 78 AD3d 855, 856 [2010]; People v Talbert, 303 AD2d 696 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bogan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
However, the record does not indicate that the defendant was absent during the instructions, and the defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]; People v Talbert, 303 AD2d 696 [2003]; People v Davis, 151 AD2d 596 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Still
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The record does not support the further contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of his right to be present during the rereading of certain testimony (see People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44, 48 ; People v Afrika, 13 AD3d 1218, 1222-1223 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 827 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Afrika
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
We reject the further contention of defendant that his statutory right to be present during the supplementary jury instructions was violated (see CPL 310.30; People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Chacon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Here, defendant failed to rebut the presumption that a written waiver of the right to a jury trial was executed (see generally People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; People v Toro, 186 AD2d 603, 604 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 848 [1993]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. McNerney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Defendant failed to come forward with substan tial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings” (People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Martin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
The absence of a notation in the record indicating that defendant was present is not sufficient to demonstrate that he was not present (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44, 48 ; People v Afrika, 13 AD3d 1218, 1222-1223 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 827 [2005]), and thus defendant has failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to criminal proceedings (see Afrika, 13 AD3d at 1222-1223 ; see generally People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Vullo v. Park Ins. Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Absent a mandatory basis for recusal/disqualification and vacatur, the court, which, in an abundance of caution, properly exercised its discretion to recuse itself from further proceedings based on the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety, did not abuse its discretion in declining to vacate the liquidation order ( see Glatzer v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. , 95 AD3d 707 [1st Dept 2012]; see also Rochester Community Individual Practice Assn. v Excellus Health Plan , 305 AD2d 1007 [4th Dept 2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 546 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Vullo v. Park Ins. Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Absent a mandatory basis for recusal/disqualification and vacatur, the court, which, in an abundance of caution, properly exercised its discretion to recuse itself from further proceedings based on the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety, did not abuse its discretion in declining to vacate the liquidation order ( see Glatzer v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. , 95 AD3d 707 [1st Dept 2012]; see also Rochester Community Individual Practice Assn. v Excellus Health Plan , 305 AD2d 1007 [4th Dept 2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 546 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Walker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court reporter’s failure to document defendant’s presence or lack thereof is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden of rebutting the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings (see Foster, 1 NY3d at 48 ; see also People v Andrew, 1 NY3d 546 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Larry Andrew, Also Known as Larry Andrews, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 18, 2003.
804 N.E.2d 399
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, De Nice Powell, New York City, and Lynn W.L. Fahey for appellant., Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Thomas S. Berkman and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, arising from an incident in a rooming house where both he and the complainant resided. Defendant interposed a defense of justification. The trial court admitted complainant’s hospital record into evidence, but redacted a notation by a resident physician stating that it was impossible to obtain the complainant’s consent to surgery because he was too drunk. Defendant claims that the redaction of this information was error. We note, however, that defendant had the laboratory results, showing complainant’s toxicology level, available for his use. Moreover, defendant did not rely on the purported intoxication of the complainant. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in redacting the notation.

Finally, the court did not violate defendant’s right to be present during the issuance of supplemental jury instructions. Defendant failed to come forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44 [2003]; see generally People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 298 [1951]).

[*548] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.