Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1992–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dokes
green
2 sentences1994Memorandum: Because we cannot conclude that defendant’s presence at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous, the denial of defendant’s right to be present at that hearing mandates reversal (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ). 1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 5 | 1992–1994 |
People v. Eady
green
2 sentences1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). 1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 3 | 1992–1993 |
Adema v. R.L.S. Equipment Co.
neutral
2 sentences1993Memorandum: The absence of defendant from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing deprived him of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ). 1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 3 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Jabaut
neutral
2 sentences1993Memorandum: The absence of defendant from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing deprived him of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ). 1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 3 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Gebrosky
neutral
2 sentences1993We reject the People’s argument that defendant’s presence would have been superfluous (see, People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 ; People v Dokes, supra, at 662 ; People v Kirkland, supra). 1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 3 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Alexander
green
2 sentences1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). 1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 2 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Beasley
green
2 sentences1992Memorandum: Reversal is required because defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing deprived him of his constitutional right to be present during all material stages of the trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 [decided herewith]). 1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 2 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Gebrosky
neutral
2 sentences1992The fact that the court made its Sandoval ruling in defendant’s presence is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s right to be present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 ). 1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 2 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Russell
neutral
1 sentence1996Reversal is not required by defendant’s absence from an in-chambers Sandoval hearing because the subsequent proceeding held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing (see, People v Russell, 191 AD2d 1001 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1019 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Sharpe
green
1 sentence1996Memorandum: By order dated March 17, 1995, this Court held defendant’s appeal, reserved decision and remitted the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Sharpe, 213 AD2d 1008 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Turner
green
1 sentence1996Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: When this appeal was previously before us, we held the case, reserved decision and remitted the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Baxter, 216 AD2d 931 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Miller
neutral
1 sentence1996Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Miller, 221 AD2d 1001 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Ireland
neutral
1 sentence1996Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Oneida County Court to make findings of fact and to determine whether defendant was present at the in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Ireland, 222 AD2d 1075 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Baxter
neutral
1 sentence1996Memorandum: We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Onondaga County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at the in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Baxter, 226 AD2d 1116 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Chrysler
green
1 sentence1996The testimony at the reconstruction hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant was present at the hearing (see, People v Terry, 225 AD2d 1058 , lv denied 88 NY2d 886 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Favor
green
1 sentence1994Memorandum: Because we cannot conclude that defendant’s presence at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous, the denial of defendant’s right to be present at that hearing mandates reversal (see, People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence1993Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Brown, 195 AD2d 1055 [decided herewith]; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Kirkland, 188 AD2d 1083 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Paul
neutral
1 sentence1992Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of his trial (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPU 260.20; People v Gebrosky, 80 NY2d 995 , revg 181 AD2d 692 ; People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Alexander, 80 NY2d 801 , revg 174 AD2d 996 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ; People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 [decided herewith]; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Ruiz
neutral
1 sentence1992The People’s argument that defendant’s presence at the Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous is unavailing (see, People v Gebrosky, supra; People v Alexander, supra; People v Dokes, supra; People v Eady, supra; cf., People v Martorana, 187 AD2d 975 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |