People v. Russo, 283 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
People v. Russo, 283 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Burrell (nyappdiv, 2014-08-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Burrell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant, however, that it is unclear from the record whether he was present for a portion of the Ventimiglia hearing conducted in chambers, and thus we are unable to determine whether defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial was violated (see generally People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Burrell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant, however, that it is unclear from the record whether he was present for a portion of the Ventimiglia hearing conducted in chambers, and thus we are unable to determine whether defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial was violated (see generally People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing on that issue (see Kahley, 105 AD3d at 1324-1325 ; see generally People v Cruz, 42 AD3d 901, 901 [2007]; People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910-911 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing on that issue (see Kahley, 105 AD3d at 1324-1325 ; see generally People v Cruz, 42 AD3d 901, 901 [2007]; People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910-911 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Linnan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine which prospective juror made the expurgatory statements (see People v Degondea, 256 AD2d 39, 40-42 [1998]; cf. People v Cohen, 302 AD2d 904, 905 [2003]; People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910-911 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Russo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Chautauqua County Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present during certain “pretrial, sidebar and charge conferences and handling of jury notes and, if not, whether ‘only questions of law or procedure’ were involved such that defendant’s presence was not required” and, in addition, to “determine whether defendant was present during the readback of the jury charge” (People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910, 910-911 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cruz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
Although it appears on the record before us that there was a jury note, the record is silent with respect to the court’s response to the note, and we conclude that “further inquiry of the trial court, the prosecutor, defense counsel and the court reporter is required to determine whether [there was a jury note and, if so, what] action was taken with regard to the jury note” (People v Martinez, 186 AD2d 14, 15 [1992]; see People v Russo, 283 AD2d 910 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 867 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carmen Russo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 2, 2001.
283 A.D.2d 910
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends, inter alia, that County Court violated his constitutional (see, Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105-106; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659) and statutory (see, CPL 260.20, 310.30; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 590) rights to be present at all material stages of the trial. Specifically, defendant contends that he was denied the right to be present at certain pretrial, sidebar and charge conferences. He also contends that he was denied the right to be present during the court’s handling of jury notes and during the readback of the jury charge. The record is insufficient to enable us to review those contentions. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Chautauqua County Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present for the aforementioned pretrial, sidebar and charge conferences and handling of jury notes[*911] and, if not, whether “only questions of law or procedure” were involved such that defendant’s presence was not required (People v Rodriguez, supra, at 591). In addition, upon remittal the court must determine whether defendant was present during the readback of the jury charge. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Ward, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.