mode of proceedings error in New York

2026Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court's alleged violation of CPL 270.15 does not fall within the " 'very narrow exception' " to the preservation rule of a mode of proceedings error ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 540 [2016], rearg denied 28 NY3d 944 [2016]; see People v Szurgot , 239 AD3d 1444 , 1445 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1013 [2025]).

2025Contrary to defendant's contention, the failure to follow the mandates of CPL 270.15 (2) does not fall within the " 'very narrow exception' " of a mode of proceedings error to the preservation rule ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 540 [2016], rearg denied 28 NY3d 944 [2016]).

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2026The court did not commit a mode of proceedings error under People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 [1991]).

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2026Similarly "where the trial court has read the precise contents of the [jury] note into the record in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jury, . . . the court's failure to discuss the note with counsel before recalling the jury is not a mode of proceedings error" ( People v Wiggs , 28 NY3d 987, 988 [2016], quoting People v Nealon ,26 NY3d 152, 160-162 [2015]; see People v Morris , 27 NY3d 1096, 1097-1098 [2016] [no mode of proceedings error where the trial court read the precise content of a jury note into the record for the first time in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jur

2026Similarly "where the trial court has read the precise contents of the [jury] note into the record in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jury, . . . the court's failure to discuss the note with counsel before recalling the jury is not a mode of proceedings error" ( People v Wiggs , 28 NY3d 987, 988 [2016], quoting People v Nealon ,26 NY3d 152, 160-162 [2015]; see People v Morris , 27 NY3d 1096, 1097-1098 [2016] [no mode of proceedings error where the trial court read the precise content of a jury note into the record for the first time in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jur

2025We also reject defendant's contention that the court committed a mode of proceedings error in issuing the requested instruction ( see generally People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]; People v Agramonte , 87 NY2d 765, 770 [1996]).

2025We also reject defendant's contention that the court committed a mode of proceedings error in issuing the requested instruction ( see generally People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]; People v Agramonte , 87 NY2d 765, 770 [1996]).

2023"Not every procedural misstep in a criminal case is a mode of proceedings error," a term that is "reserved for the most fundamental flaws" in a criminal proceeding ( People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]), such as shifting the burden of proof from the People to the defense ( see People v Patterson , 39 NY2d 288, 296 [1976], affd 432 US 197 [1977]).

2019Until then, the mode of proceedings doctrine had comprised a “very narrow” exception to our preservation rule (People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]) that was reserved for “the most fundamental of flaws” (People v Becoats, 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011]).

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed a mode of proceedings error in its handling of a jury request during deliberations ( see CPL 310.30; People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ), for, inter alia, a repetition of the elements of one of the crimes charged is without merit ( see People v Alcide , 21 NY3d 687, 694 ).

2021Where a trial court "paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with . . . notice of the precise content of [*2]a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 ; see People v Alcide , 21 NY3d 687, 692 ; People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 ).

2017Here, although the defendant failed to object to the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the two notes, under the circumstances of this case, the court violated O’Rama and committed a mode of proceedings error, obviating the need for preservation, by failing to provide the defendant with notice of the “precise contents” of the notes prior to giving its responses (People v Nealon, 26 NY3d at 157 ; cf. People v Morris, 27 NY3d 1096 [2016]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687 [2013]; People v Ramirez 15 NY3d 824 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 [1995]).

2016By contrast, where counsel has meaningful notice of a substantive jury note that has been read verbatim in open court, the court’s failure to discuss the note or its intended response with counsel outside the presence of the jury is not a mode of proceedings error because counsel is not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully (see Nealon, 26 NY3d at 160-162 ; Alcide, 21 NY3d at 693-694 ; Williams, 21 NY3d at 934-935 ; Ramirez, 15 NY3d at 825-826 ; Starling, 85 NY2d at 516 ).

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2020Furthermore, although defendant failed to preserve his contention that he never entered a plea of guilty to CSCS in the fifth degree, "defendant's claims . . . implicat[e] rights of a constitutional dimension directed to the heart of the proceedings—i.e., a mode of proceedings error for which preservation is not required" ( People v Tyrell , 22 NY3d 359, 364 [2013]).

2018Unlike the situation in People v Tyrell , 22 NY3d 359 (2013), defendant had ample opportunity to move to withdraw her plea or otherwise raise the issue and the alleged deficiency did not rise to the level of a mode of proceedings error ( see People v Powell , 134 AD3d 647 [2015] , lv denied 27 NY3d 1073 [2016]).

2024Relying on People v Ramirez ( 60 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2009], affd 15 NY3d 824 [2010]), the People contend that "[t]he record warrants an inference" ( id. at 561) that defense counsel had seen the note during an off-the-record conference with the court, and, thus, the court's failure to read the note in its entirety into the record does not constitute a mode of proceedings error ( see generally People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 158 [2015]).

2017Here, although the defendant failed to object to the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the two notes, under the circumstances of this case, the court violated O’Rama and committed a mode of proceedings error, obviating the need for preservation, by failing to provide the defendant with notice of the “precise contents” of the notes prior to giving its responses (People v Nealon, 26 NY3d at 157 ; cf. People v Morris, 27 NY3d 1096 [2016]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687 [2013]; People v Ramirez 15 NY3d 824 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 [1995]).

2025Accordingly, there was no mode of proceedings error exempt from preservation requirements ( see People v Agramonte , 87 NY2d 765, 770 [1996] [explaining that a mode of proceedings error is a narrow exception to the preservation requirement reserved for "[o]nly fundamental defects in judicial proceedings"]).

2025We also reject defendant's contention that the court committed a mode of proceedings error in issuing the requested instruction ( see generally People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]; People v Agramonte , 87 NY2d 765, 770 [1996]).

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2026A mode of proceedings error occurs, and automatic reversal is required, "[w]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry" ( People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 157 [2015], citing People v Walston , 23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]; see also People v Tabb , 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). "[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the juror's request" ( People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 [2018] [internal quotation mark

2023A mode of proceedings error goes “to the essential validity of the process and [is] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted” (People v Kelly, 5 NY3d 116, 120-121 [2005]).

2022Although not precisely defined, a mode of proceedings error is one that is essential to the validity or "go[es] to the very heart of the [judicial] process" ( People v Hanley , 20 NY3d at 604 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Mack , 27 NY3d at 540-541 ; People v Rivera , 23 NY3d 827, 831 [2014]; People v Kelly , 5 NY3d at 119-120 ).

2020Likewise, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed a mode of proceedings error in its handling of a jury note marked as court exhibit 5 ( see CPL 310.30; People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit ( see People v Williams , 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 ; People v Rodriguez , 179 AD3d 844, 845 ).

2016“Nor did the court commit a mode of proceedings error by delegating delivery of its answer to [the] jury question to a court officer” inasmuch as the “task was in this context practically ministerial” (People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 935 [2013]).

2023We have previously recognized a mode of proceedings error where a court “delegat[es] [its] function” or “discharge[s] some of [its] duties” to a non-judicial official (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 312-313 [1985]).

2016We reject defendant’s contention that this was a mode of proceedings error not requiring preservation (see People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]; see also People v Hopkins, 76 NY2d 872 , 873 [1990]; cf. People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 310 [1985]).

2018Accordingly, while the trial court's decision not to provide a verbatim reading prior to responding to the note "may have been error, it was not a mode of proceedings error" ( id. at 429-430 ).

2017Furthermore, the court remedied the purported error when it waited until defendant was present before giving an Allen charge ( see People v Kadarko , 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010] ["Although the [trial] court's decision not to read the entire note until after the jury had resumed deliberations may have been error, it was not a mode of proceedings error and the court later corrected itself without objection"]).

2013Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court failed to fulfill its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, thereby committing a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from preservation requirements and requires reversal (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756, 758-759 [2012]; People v Curry, 101 AD3d 743, 745 [2012]; People v Surpris, 83 AD3d 742, 744 [2011]; People v Lewis, 77 AD3d 579, 580 [2010]).

2013Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court failed to fulfill its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, thereby committing a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from preservation requirements and requires reversal (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756, 758-759 [2012]; People v Curry, 101 AD3d 743, 745 [2012]; People v Surpris, 83 AD3d 742, 744 [2011]; People v Lewis, 77 AD3d 579, 580 [2010]).

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jury

2026Thus, a mode of proceedings error will typically be found when the trial court either withholds a jury note altogether ( see O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 279 ; People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]), substantially alters or paraphrases the jury note by omitting key terms when advising counsel of the request ( Walston , 23 NY3d at 990 ; People v Kisoon , 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v Dennis , 192 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]), or when there is no indication on the record that the court informed defense counsel of the contents of the jury note, or read the jur

2021Contrary to defendant's assertion, his argument on that point does not implicate a mode of proceedings error ( see People v Prokop , 155 AD3d 975, 976 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1118 [2018]; People v Mason , 132 AD3d 777, 779 [2d Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 29 NY3d 972 [2017]; see also People v Brown , 7 NY3d 880, 881 [2006]).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's conduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation ( see People v Brown , 7 NY3d 880, 881 ; People v Wilson , 163 AD3d at 881; People v Prokop , 155 AD3d at 976 ; People v Mason , 132 AD3d at 779 ).

2013Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court failed to fulfill its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, thereby committing a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from preservation requirements and requires reversal (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756, 758-759 [2012]; People v Curry, 101 AD3d 743, 745 [2012]; People v Surpris, 83 AD3d 742, 744 [2011]; People v Lewis, 77 AD3d 579, 580 [2010]).

2013Contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court failed to fulfill its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, thereby committing a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from preservation requirements and requires reversal (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756, 758-759 [2012]; People v Curry, 101 AD3d 743, 745 [2012]; People v Surpris, 83 AD3d 742, 744 [2011]; People v Lewis, 77 AD3d 579, 580 [2010]).

2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's alleged misconduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting the defendant from the rules of preservation ( see People v Brown , 7 NY3d 880, 881 ; People v Mason , 132 AD3d 777, 779 ; People v Cunningham , 119 AD3d at 601-602 ; People v Casanova , 62 AD3d 88, 91-92 ).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the excusal of those jurors did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation ( see People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d at 601 ; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88, 91 ).