People v. Cook, 650 N.E.2d 847 (NY 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cook, 650 N.E.2d 847 (NY 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (36 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Qatabi (nyappdiv, 2026-02-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Qatabi (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
The court also did not prevent counsel from responding to the jury note ( cf. People v Cook , 85 NY2d 928, 930-931 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Nor did the jury otherwise indicate that it was at an impasse or a standstill (cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930 [1995]; People v Dame, 144 AD3d 1625, 1625 [2016]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Nor did the jury otherwise indicate that it was at an impasse or a standstill (cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930 [1995]; People v Dame, 144 AD3d 1625, 1625 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Oscar Sanders
NY · 2016 · confidence medium
To that end, there is no record support for the lower *778 courts’ conclusion that the investigating officer had probable cause to believe that defendant’s clothes were the instrumentality of a crime (see generally People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; cf. generally People v Salvodon, 127 AD3d 1239, 1240-1241 [2d Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v.Kenneth Nealon (2×)
NY · 2015 · confidence medium
Indeed, if counsel here had objected to the court’s deviation from the O’Rama procedure or had sought an opportunity to provide input outside the presence of the jury, and the court had refused, the court’s refusal would be error (see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930-931 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Malave
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the People’s contention, the hearing court properly suppressed the physical evidence obtained from the police officer’s search under these circumstances (see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Malave
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the People’s contention, the hearing court properly suppressed the physical evidence obtained from the police officer’s search under these circumstances (see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Weaver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we reject the People’s contention that the court’s errors in failing to comply with CPL 310.20 (1) and CPL 310.30 are harmless (s ee People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930-931 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lockley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Moreover, since the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to participate in formulating a response to the jury’s notes, prejudice manifestly resulted (see People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d at 135 ; People v Cook, 85 NY2d at 931; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 279-280 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court provided defense counsel with notice of the content thereof and with the substance of the court’s intended response (cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]), and defendant failed to object at that time (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Cooley, 48 AD3d 1091 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 861 [2008]; see also People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801, 803 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
We also note that defense counsel did not ask to approach the bench or request a sidebar conference after the repugnant verdict was rendered, and the trial court did not in any manner prevent defense counsel from making such a request (compare People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 513-514 [1995], with People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930-931 [1995]; see People v Campbell, 48 AD3d 204, 205 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cooley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Because defendant neither requested the opportunity to suggest responses to those requests nor “lodge[d] any objection to the manner of proceeding or to the substance of the court’s responses,” we conclude that he failed to preserve for our review both his contention that the court failed to comply with CPL 310.30 and his further contention that he was deprived of the opportunity to suggest appropriate responses to the jury’s requests (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 514 [1995]; see People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801, 803 [1993]; cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 930-931 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The failure to disclose the exact content of the jury’s substantive inquiries was “inherently prejudicial,” effectively depriving defendant of an opportunity to evaluate those inquiries and to propose responses (People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279-280 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kisoon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
In People v O'Rama (supra at 279) the Court of Appeals held that a defendant need not object to the trial court’s improper handling of a jury note in order to challenge the court’s procedure on appeal if the court’s actions had the effect of “preventing defense counsel from participating meaningfully in this critical stage of the trial” (see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; see also People v Guzman, 259 AD2d 632 [1999]; People v Heath, 234 AD2d 388 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Gough
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“The purpose of CPL 310.30 and the O’Rama decision is to maximize the participation of counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, that is, before the court gives its formal response to the jury” (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 838 ; see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928 [1995]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 278 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“The purpose of CPL 310.30 and the O’Rama decision is to maximize the participation of counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, that is, before the court gives its formal response to the jury” (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 838 ; see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 278).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“The purpose of CPL 310.30 and the O’Rama decision is to maximize the participation of counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, that is, before the court gives its formal response to the jury” (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 838 ; see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 278).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Stocks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“The purpose of CPL 310.30 and the O’Rama decision is to maximize the participation of counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, that is, before the court gives its formal response to the jury” (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 838 ; see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 278 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Stocks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“The purpose of CPL 310.30 and the O’Rama decision is to maximize the participation of counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, that is, before the court gives its formal response to the jury” (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 838 ; see People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 278 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Salvodon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The People’s contention that the police had probable cause to search the bag containing the defendant’s personal belongings because it contained evidence of a crime is without merit (see People v Alston, 122 AD3d 934, 935 [2014]; see also People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Alston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his personal belongings, notwithstanding the fact that he was a hospital patient and his belongings were being temporarily stored in the hospital’s security office (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108 [1996]; People v Watt, 118 Misc. 2d 930 [Sup Ct, NY County 1983]; see also People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defense counsel is entitled to “meaningful notice” of an inquiry from the jury, which includes actual notice of the specific content of the inquiry and an opportunity to provide input prior to the court’s response (see, People v O'Rama, 78 NY2d 270 ; see also, People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928 ; People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Initially, we emphasize that County Court was obligated to give defendant and defense counsel meaningful notice of the precise contents of the jury’s note and an advance opportunity to suggest appropriate responses (see, CPL 310.30; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 276-279 ; see also, People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928 ; People v Guzman, 259 AD2d 632 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Gonzalez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court afforded the defendant ample opportunity to suggest appropriate responses to the note in which the jury indicated it was deadlocked (see, People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 277 ; see also, People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael Cook, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 27, 1995.
650 N.E.2d 847
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Marsha Weinstein, Kew Gardens, for appellant., Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Alyson J. Gill and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Following a jury trial, defendant was acquitted of two counts of robbery (Penal Law § 160.15 [1], [2]), and convicted of one count of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [4]). During the course of jury deliberations, the jury addressed several written inquiries to the trial court, including requests that parts of the testimony and the court’s instructions be read back. After responding to a jury request not at issue on this appeal, the court informed the parties that it had received another note, this one from a single member of the jury stating that the jury was at an "emotional impasse.”

At that point, defense counsel asked to approach the bench, but was told that he could not and that he should not interrupt the court. Counsel continued to protest, noting that he had not seen the note. However, the court, without responding to counsel, read the note aloud and then instructed the jury to decide the case on the evidence, without letting emotions enter into their deliberations.

After the jury left the courtroom to continue deliberating, the court and defense counsel engaged in a colloquy during which the court ruled that defense counsel had absolutely no right to suggest or comment on the response to the jury’s "emotional impasse” note, and peremptorily directed counsel not to attempt to assert such right. The court also refused defense counsel’s request for an opportunity to make a record of his objections.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, citing this Court’s decision in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270), held that although the Trial Judge erred by refusing defense counsel the opportunity to suggest responses to the note from the juror, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (202 AD2d 443). We agree that the trial court committed error but are unable to agree that the error was harmless.

[*931] In O’Rama, we held that the failure of a trial court to inform defense counsel of the exact contents of a juror’s note * deprived defendant of the "meaningful notice” required by CPL 310.30. Meaningful notice, we said, requires not only that counsel be present in the courtroom when the court delivers its response to jurors’ requests for information or instruction, but also "that counsel has the opportunity to be heard before the response is given” (People v O’Rama, supra, at 277; cf., People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 [decided today]).

The trial court’s error in O’Rama, i.e., failure to disclose the exact content of a substantive inquiry by a deliberating jury, "had the effect of entirely preventing defense counsel from participating meaningfully in this critical stage of the trial” (id., at 279) and was, thus, inherently prejudicial. This Court concluded in O’Rama, therefore, that the error was reversible even without a showing of specific prejudice. In the instant case, the court entirely deprived defendant of his right to have specific input into the court’s response to the single juror’s note. Moreover, just as in O’Rama, the court’s response to the juror’s note "was, unquestionably, intended to have an effect on the deliberative process” (People v O’Rama, supra, at 280). Thus, the court’s denial of defendant’s opportunity to participate in the charging decision was inherently prejudicial. As such, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

We also agree with defendant that the property recovered from defendant’s clothing by a police officer before defendant was arrested, identified as a participant in the robbery, or connected in any identifiable way to the crime being investigated must be suppressed. There is nothing in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the officer who searched the clothing found on the hospital floor in the same room with defendant "was directed to a room where the other individual was who was involved in the shooting in the robbery.” Nor was the search conducted pursuant to a warrant, by consent, or incident to arrest (see, People v Loria, 10 NY2d 368). And contrary to the People’s assertions, neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division found probable cause to search the clothing. The search was therefore illegal, and the evidence seized improperly admitted at trial.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

*

The juror’s note in O’Rama also reflected that the jury was having difliculty in deliberations. The court responded with an Allen charge.