People v. Cuevas, 409 N.E.2d 1360 (N.Y. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cuevas, 409 N.E.2d 1360 (N.Y. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mark G. v. Sabol (nyappdiv, 1998-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mark G. v. Sabol
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Doe v Fein, supra, 93 F3d, at 868-869 [citations omitted]; see also, Sinhogar v Parry, 74 AD2d 204, 213 , appeal dismissed in part 50 NY2d 1022 .) We agree that the G. children were entitled not to be returned to their abusive home environment without adequate procedural protection; however, there must be a threshold finding of need and eligibility made before a plan for preventive services is developed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Santos
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: compare · confidence low
Active engagement in the community as an undercover narcotics agent is itself a compelling reason for excluding the public from the courtroom, at least when the fact of such engagement is elicited from the witness himself (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 65 ["We also reject defendant’s submission that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court, after a hearing to have closed the trial to the public during the testimony of the undercover agent who was then still actively engaged in narcotics investigation.”]; compare, People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022 [error to close courtroom solely on bas…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Romain
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
The ex post facto determination by the Trial Judge that the closure was necessary, without having first inquired of the undercover officer to ascertain that preservation of his anonymity was necessary to protect his safety or utility to the police department, does not suffice to justify the prior closure (see, People v Roberto, 67 AD2d 687; see also, People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022 ), particularly in light of the failure to provide the defense counsel with an opportunity to examine the undercover officer or even to be heard prior to a decision to close the courtroom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carlos Cuevas
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 3, 1980.
409 N.E.2d 1360
1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2548
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Gary E. Divis and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Alan D. Rubinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

[*1024] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The court may upon application by the prosecutor exclude the public from a portion of the trial during the testimony of an undercover agent in order to protect the integrity of pending investigations, as well as the witness’ future usefulness, or to insure his safety from possible reprisals. The principles and procedures applicable to such a motion have been discussed at length in our prior decisions (see, e.g., People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409).

Here the District Attorney sought to have the courtroom closed solely on his representation that the witness was an undercover officer. Although the court questioned the prosecutor prior to granting the motion, it erred by failing to make an adequate inquiry of the witness, as well as the factual findings prescribed in People v Jones (supra).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.