People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Morrison (ny, 2018-06-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrison
NY · 2018 · confidence medium
In People v Mitchell , for instance, the Appellate Division observed that "[t]he jury note in question appeared in the court file but the transcript contain[ed] no reference to it" (129 AD3d at 404).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Meyers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to assess all the circumstances regarding the item, including when and how it came to the court’s attention and when it was marked as a court exhibit and placed into the court file, and thereafter a report to this Court limited to the Supreme Court’s findings (see People v Mitchell, 129 AD3d 404, 404 [2015]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Sylvia Mitchell, Appellant
14811 924/13.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 2, 2015.
129 A.D.3d 404
Mazzarelli, Friedman, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, Kapnick.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 5 to 15 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing as to the circumstances surrounding the entry into the record of jury note nine.

The jury note in question appeared in the court file but the transcript contains no reference to it. Before this Court can consider defendant’s claim that Supreme Court’s failure to address the note pursuant to CPL 310.30 constituted a mode of proceeding error (see People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270 [1991]), the record should be reconstructed as completely as possible to determine the facts surrounding the submission of the note and how the note was handled by the court.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.