People v. Cruz

• Decision Date: 17 December 1992
• Citation: 593 N.Y.S.2d 767,609 N.E.2d 120,81 N.Y.2d 738
• Parties: , 609 N.E.2d 120 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto CRUZ, Also Known as Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 767

593 N.Y.S.2d 767

81 N.Y.2d 738, 609 N.E.2d 120

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto CRUZ, Also Known as Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 17, 1992.

[609 N.E.2d 121] William B. Carney and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty. of Bronx County, New York City, (Daniel S. Ratner and Susan L. Valle, of counsel), for respondent, and for New York State Dist. Attys. Ass'n., amicus curiae.

[81 N.Y.2d 739] Anthony J. Ferrara, New York City, for Ass'n. of the Bar of the City of New York, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 179 A.D.2d 529, 579 N.Y.S.2d 39, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The trial court improperly conducted a Sandoval hearing (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) in defendant's absence, requiring a new trial (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836; People v. Gebrosky, 80 N.Y.2d 995, 592 N.Y.S.2d 650, 607 N.E.2d 797). It is therefore unnecessary to consider defendant's remaining contention.

SIMONS, Acting C.J., and KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur in memorandum.

SMITH, J., taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.