de nova hearing in New York

1996By the same token, a defendant’s absence from a hearing will not deprive him or her of the opportunity to give meaningful input when the court essentially holds a de nova hearing on the same matter at which defendant is present (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d, at 268 , supra; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d, at 473 , supra).

1996However, a defendant’s absence from a Sandoval hearing does not deprive him or her of the opportunity to give meaningful input into a Sandoval determination when the court essentially and functionally conducts a de nova hearing on the same matter at which defendant is present and at which he and his lawyer have a full and fair opportunity to participate (see, People v Feliciano, 88 NY2d 18, 27 [decided today]; People v Favor, supra, at 268 ).

2013Indeed, the court explicitly ruled that a de nova hearing was required, based on the First Department’s decision in People v Ascher ( 106 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2013]).

1996The Appellate Division held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a de nova hearing on the ready trial motion because Supreme Court had relied on an Appellate Division case which had been reversed on appeal (see, People v Bolden, 174 AD2d 111 , revd 81 NY2d 146 ) (People v Torres, 210 AD2d 270 ).

1996By the same token, a defendant’s absence from a hearing will not deprive him or her of the opportunity to give meaningful input when the court essentially holds a de nova hearing on the same matter at which defendant is present (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d, at 268 , supra; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d, at 473 , supra).

1996The Appellate Division held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a de nova hearing on the ready trial motion because Supreme Court had relied on an Appellate Division case which had been reversed on appeal (see, People v Bolden, 174 AD2d 111 , revd 81 NY2d 146 ) (People v Torres, 210 AD2d 270 ).

1996The Appellate Division held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a de nova hearing on the ready trial motion because Supreme Court had relied on an Appellate Division case which had been reversed on appeal (see, People v Bolden, 174 AD2d 111 , revd 81 NY2d 146 ) (People v Torres, 210 AD2d 270 ).

1994In a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the agency’s determination, the Appellate Division fully upheld DHCR’s position, and further held that because this garage service was a building-wide service the determination applied to all tenants of the building using such service (Matter of Netherland Operating Corp. v Eimicke, 135 AD2d 352 , lv denied 71 NY2d 802 ).

1994The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order requiring his release and remanded the matter for a de nova hearing ( 190 AD2d 423 ).

1992(People v Wright, 135 AD2d 594 [prosecution’s failure to produce a witness’ prior inconsistent statement required a de nova suppression hearing]; People v Manzione, 109 AD2d 755 [prosecution’s failure to produce several documents containing prior statements of prosecution witnesses required a de nova hearing]; People v Fulgham, 155 AD2d 687 [no violation of CPL 240.44 as missing document did not relate to any testifying witness at the hearing].) A violation of CPL article 240 requires sanctions to be imposed.

1992(People v Wright, 135 AD2d 594 [prosecution’s failure to produce a witness’ prior inconsistent statement required a de nova suppression hearing]; People v Manzione, 109 AD2d 755 [prosecution’s failure to produce several documents containing prior statements of prosecution witnesses required a de nova hearing]; People v Fulgham, 155 AD2d 687 [no violation of CPL 240.44 as missing document did not relate to any testifying witness at the hearing].) A violation of CPL article 240 requires sanctions to be imposed.

1992(People v Wright, 135 AD2d 594 [prosecution’s failure to produce a witness’ prior inconsistent statement required a de nova suppression hearing]; People v Manzione, 109 AD2d 755 [prosecution’s failure to produce several documents containing prior statements of prosecution witnesses required a de nova hearing]; People v Fulgham, 155 AD2d 687 [no violation of CPL 240.44 as missing document did not relate to any testifying witness at the hearing].) A violation of CPL article 240 requires sanctions to be imposed.

1992(People v Sacco, 141 Misc 2d 98 .) The Court of Appeals noted that "[i]n fashioning an 'appropriate’ response to the prosecution’s wrongful failure to preserve evidence * * * the degree of prosecutorial fault surely may be considered, but the overriding concern must be to eliminate any prejudice to the defendant while protecting the interests of society”.

1991Nor is there anything in section 516 which bars the mother or someone else on behalf of the child (Family Ct Act § 522) from offering evidence to aid the court — in considering a petition for approval of a compromise agreement — in making its determination " 'that adequate provision has been made and is fully secured’ ” (see, Carmen V. v Bruce R., 115 Misc 2d 377, 378 ), or whether the agreement should be made modifiable under certain circumstances (Bacon v Bacon, supra).

1991By filing his application to enforce the decrees of the Supreme Court of Ontario, this petitioner, unlike the petitioner in Sheikh v Cahill ( 145 Misc 2d 171 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1989]), did not submit himself to this jurisdiction so that this court could make a de nova custody determination.

1991Nor is there anything in section 516 which bars the mother or someone else on behalf of the child (Family Ct Act § 522) from offering evidence to aid the court — in considering a petition for approval of a compromise agreement — in making its determination " 'that adequate provision has been made and is fully secured’ ” (see, Carmen V. v Bruce R., 115 Misc 2d 377, 378 ), or whether the agreement should be made modifiable under certain circumstances (Bacon v Bacon, supra).

1977(Matter of Kapzynski v Kapzynski, 30 AD2d 962 ; Matter of Stone v Chip, 68 Misc 2d 134 .) The court is not unmindful of section 262 of the Family Court Act, which provides for the assignment of counsel to indigent persons, and that it is applicable to custody proceed ings under part 3 of article 6 of the Family Court Act.

1977(See Matter of Blitzer v Blitzer, 46 AD2d 858 .) The procedure used was almost identical to that in Steinmetz v Steinmetz ( 77 Misc 2d 446 ) where a de nova hearing was granted by the Supreme Court on the question of child support on the basis that there had been no meaningful inquiry into the adequacy of the child support provisions.

1977(Gullo v Gullo, 46 AD2d 991 .) By analogy, if the Supreme Court permits incorporation into a divorce decree, by stipulation or default, of a separation agreement between the parties which provides a legally insufficient amount of child support, without an independent evaluation of the prevailing equities by the court, the children should have a right to a de nova hearing on the matter of support.

1977(See Matter of Blitzer v Blitzer, 46 AD2d 858 .) The procedure used was almost identical to that in Steinmetz v Steinmetz ( 77 Misc 2d 446 ) where a de nova hearing was granted by the Supreme Court on the question of child support on the basis that there had been no meaningful inquiry into the adequacy of the child support provisions.

1977(Matter of Kapzynski v Kapzynski, 30 AD2d 962 ; Matter of Stone v Chip, 68 Misc 2d 134 .) The court is not unmindful of section 262 of the Family Court Act, which provides for the assignment of counsel to indigent persons, and that it is applicable to custody proceed ings under part 3 of article 6 of the Family Court Act.