supplemental instruction in New York

2026"In analyzing whether that discretion was abused, '[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant' " (<i>People v Lee</i>, 183 AD3d 1183, 1188 [3d Dept 2020], <i>lv denied</i> 35 NY3d 1114 [2020], quoting <i>People v Malloy</i>, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], <i>cert denied</i> 459 US 847 [1982]; <i>see People v Cason</i>, 203 AD3d 1309, 1315 [3d Dept 2022], <i>lv denied</i> 3

2026Whether a response is meaningful depends upon "the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; see People v Taylor , 26 NY3d at 224).

2024Even assuming defendant preserved his objection to the court's supplemental instruction, we find that the court responded meaningfully to the jury's request for further instruction ( see People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]).

2024Even assuming defendant preserved his objection to the court's supplemental instruction, we find that the court responded meaningfully to the jury's request for further instruction ( see People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]).

2009Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s supplemental instruction on circumstantial evidence was meaningful and did not result in any prejudice to the defendant (see CPL 310.30; People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 248 [2004]; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831 [2008]; People v Vega, 291 AD2d 465 [2002]).

2007Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s supplemental instruction, which provided a simplified version of the court’s prior instructions on the elements of assault, was a meaningful response (see People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 248-249 [2004]; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]).

2026"In analyzing whether that discretion was abused, '[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant' " (<i>People v Lee</i>, 183 AD3d 1183, 1188 [3d Dept 2020], <i>lv denied</i> 35 NY3d 1114 [2020], quoting <i>People v Malloy</i>, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], <i>cert denied</i> 459 US 847 [1982]; <i>see People v Cason</i>, 203 AD3d 1309, 1315 [3d Dept 2022], <i>lv denied</i> 3

2026Whether a response is meaningful depends upon "the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; see People v Taylor , 26 NY3d at 224).

2026Whether a response is meaningful depends upon "the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; see People v Taylor , 26 NY3d at 224).

2026Whether a response is meaningful depends upon "the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; see People v Taylor , 26 NY3d at 224).

2021Consequently, we conclude that "the court's supplemental instruction, viewed together with the court's main charge, adequately conveyed the applicable principles of law to the jury and was a meaningful response to the jury's inquiry" ( People v Smith , 21 AD3d 1277, 1278 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]; see generally Malloy , 55 NY2d at 301-302 ).

2018Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court's supplemental instruction on intent "adequately conveyed the applicable principles of law to the jury and was a meaningful response to the jury's inquiry" ( People v Smith , 21 AD3d 1277, 1278 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]).

2020In analyzing whether that discretion was abused, "[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; accord People v Taylor , 26 NY3d at 224 ; see People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1156-1157 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 963 [2012]).

2013“In interpreting the adequacy of the court’s response, we consider the form of the question, the particular issue raised, the supplemental instruction actually given and the prejudice, if any, to the defendant” (People v Wilson, 90 AD3d at 1156-1157 [citation omitted]).

2015The Supreme Court did not err when it gave a supplemental instruction regarding constructive possession of a weapon in response to a note from the jury (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Pilgrim, 293 AD2d 496, 497 [2002]; People v Simeona, 194 AD2d 701, 701 [1993]; cf. People v Nevins, 16 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]).

2015The Supreme Court did not err when it gave a supplemental instruction regarding constructive possession of a weapon in response to a note from the jury (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Pilgrim, 293 AD2d 496, 497 [2002]; People v Simeona, 194 AD2d 701, 701 [1993]; cf. People v Nevins, 16 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2024"The adequacy of the trial court's response is gauged by the form of the jury question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the prejudice (if any) to the defendant" ( People v Steinberg , 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992] [citations omitted]).

2011In interpreting the adequacy of the court’s response, we consider the form of the question, the particular issue raised, the supplemental instruction actually given and the prejudice, if any, to the defendant (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d at 684 ).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in refusing to include a supplemental instruction on identification in responding to the fourth jury note (see People v Allen, 69 NY2d 915, 916 [1987]; see also People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2013“The court was not obligated to go beyond the jury’s request for information” in the fourth jury note (People v Cosby, 82 AD3d 63, 69 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]), and we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in formulating a response to that note (see generally People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 248 [2004]).

2013“The court was not obligated to go beyond the jury’s request for information” in the fourth jury note (People v Cosby, 82 AD3d 63, 69 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]), and we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in formulating a response to that note (see generally People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 248 [2004]).

2026"In analyzing whether that discretion was abused, '[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant' " (<i>People v Lee</i>, 183 AD3d 1183, 1188 [3d Dept 2020], <i>lv denied</i> 35 NY3d 1114 [2020], quoting <i>People v Malloy</i>, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], <i>cert denied</i> 459 US 847 [1982]; <i>see People v Cason</i>, 203 AD3d 1309, 1315 [3d Dept 2022], <i>lv denied</i> 3

2022In analyzing whether that discretion was abused, "'[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given and the presence [*6]or absence of prejudice to the defendant'" ( People v Lee , 183 AD3d at 1188, quoting People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]).

2015The Supreme Court did not err when it gave a supplemental instruction regarding constructive possession of a weapon in response to a note from the jury (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Pilgrim, 293 AD2d 496, 497 [2002]; People v Simeona, 194 AD2d 701, 701 [1993]; cf. People v Nevins, 16 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]).

2015The Supreme Court did not err when it gave a supplemental instruction regarding constructive possession of a weapon in response to a note from the jury (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Pilgrim, 293 AD2d 496, 497 [2002]; People v Simeona, 194 AD2d 701, 701 [1993]; cf. People v Nevins, 16 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]).

2004Consistent with its earlier ruling, the court did not deliver the instruction—previously requested by the defense and clearly warranted by the jury’s question (see Gaines, 74 NY2d at 360, 363 )—that the crime defendant intended to commit at the time of entry must be distinct from the violation of the order of protection represented by his unlawful entry. 4 The People do not contend that the supplemental instruction requested by the defense was inaccurate in any way.

1999In light of the defendant’s testimony that he made several unlawful entries into the premises, the supplemental instruction given by the court in response to the jury’s note was not error (cf., People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358 ; People v Jones, 184 AD2d 383 ; People v Roberts, 162 AD2d 729, 732 ; People v Ferguson, 158 AD2d 712, 713 ).

2021In all circumstances, the response given must be "meaningful" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 301 ). "'In determining whether the trial court has responded meaningfully to the jury's request for further instruction, the factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant'" ( People v Williams , 150 AD3d 902, 904 , quoting People v Nash , 83 AD3d 872, 873 ; see People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 ; People v Mezzacapo , 105 AD2d 808

2017“In determining whether the trial court has responded meaningfully to the jury’s request for further instruction, the factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury’s question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant” (People v Nash, 83 AD3d 872, 873 [2011]; see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]; People v Mezzacapo, 105 AD2d 808 [1984]). “[S]ince the trial court is in the best position to interpret the jury’s request, it has discretion to fashion the appropriate respons

2021In all circumstances, the response given must be "meaningful" ( People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 301 ). "'In determining whether the trial court has responded meaningfully to the jury's request for further instruction, the factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury's question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant'" ( People v Williams , 150 AD3d 902, 904 , quoting People v Nash , 83 AD3d 872, 873 ; see People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 ; People v Mezzacapo , 105 AD2d 808

2017“In determining whether the trial court has responded meaningfully to the jury’s request for further instruction, the factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury’s question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant” (People v Nash, 83 AD3d 872, 873 [2011]; see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]; People v Mezzacapo, 105 AD2d 808 [1984]). “[S]ince the trial court is in the best position to interpret the jury’s request, it has discretion to fashion the appropriate respons

2015Although defendant has a fundamental right to be present during “all material stages of a trial” (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760 [1987]), the court’s supplemental instruction to the jury — simply clarifying the dates of the crimes in the jury charge, which were the same dates set forth in the indictment — did not require defendant’s presence.

2015Although defendant has a fundamental right to be present during “all material stages of a trial” (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760 [1987]), the court’s supplemental instruction to the jury — simply clarifying the dates of the crimes in the jury charge, which were the same dates set forth in the indictment — did not require defendant’s presence.