green
Positive treatment
21.8 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
…to show what was said in chambers or whether it contributed to the court's decision that disclosure was not required
at p. 1102
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sharp
(2×)
In short, the defendant's presence will help to ensure that the court's determination will not be predicated on the prosecutor's 'unrebutted view of the facts'" (79 NY2d at 661, quoting People v. Ortega, 78 NY2d 1101, 1103 [1991]). "[P]rejudice is inherent when a defendant is deprived of the opportunity for meaningful participation" on a Sandoval application ( Favor , 82 NY2d at 267).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Lee Carr / The People v. Walter Cates, Sr.
(2×)
The proceeding was closed to defense counsel and all parties, and no record was taken "to show what was said in chambers or whether it contributed to the court's decision that disclosure was not required" (78 NY2d at 1102-1103).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Lee Carr / The People v. Walter Cates, Sr.
(4×)
The proceeding was closed to defense counsel and all parties, and no record was taken "to show what was said in chambers or whether it contributed to the court's decision that disclosure was not required" (78 NY2d at 1102-1103).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Potter
Therefore, the trial court failed to conduct a Sandoval hearing in the defendant’s presence, and the defendant was denied his right to participate in the hearing so as “to ensure that the court’s determination will not be predicated on the prosecutor’s ‘unrebutted view of the facts’ ” (People v Dokes, 79 NY2d at 661 , quoting People v Ortega, 78 NY2d 1101, 1103 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Potter
Therefore, the trial court failed to conduct a Sandoval hearing in the defendant’s presence, and the defendant was denied his right to participate in the hearing so as “to ensure that the court’s determination will not be predicated on the prosecutor’s ‘unrebutted view of the facts’ ” (People v Dokes, 79 NY2d at 661 , quoting People v Ortega, 78 NY2d 1101, 1103 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fabricio
The result was that the court’s decision as to whether to permit such questioning was necessarily, albeit inappropriately, “predicated on the prosecutor’s ‘unrebutted view of the facts’ ” (Dokes, 79 NY2d at 661 , quoting People v Ortega, 78 NY2d 1101, 1103 [1991]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Linda Sledge, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cecil Sledge
v.
City of New York
v.
City of New York
Published
Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the order of the Appellate Division as affirmed the order of Supreme Court denying plaintiffs motion to renew, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.