People v. Joyner
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rustici v. Philips (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Burton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Carmichael v. Chappius (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
- CONGELOSI v. Miller (District Court, W.D. New York 2009)
- RIVERA, STEVEN, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Joyner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Singh (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute. The defendant may be removed from the courtroom if, after being warned by the trial court, the disruptive conduct continues (see CPL 260.20; Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337, 338 [1970]; People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 444 [1985]; People v Robinson, 285 AD2d 478 [2001]). Under the circumstances of this case, the court’s removal of the defendant from the courtroom after repeated warnings and renewed opportunities to be present, was proper (see People v Johnson, 37 NY2d 778 [1975]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349 [1975], cert denied 423 US 999 [1975]; People v Jones, 288 AD2d 107 [2001]; People v Davis, 270 AD2d 162 [2000]; People v Gloster, 175 AD2d 258 [1991]; People v Cornelius, 107 AD2d 757 [1985]).
The defendant’s contention that Penal Law § 125.25 (2) is unconstitutionally vague is without merit (see People v Johnson, 87 NY2d 357, 361 [1996]; People v Cole, 85 NY2d 990, 992 [1995]; cf. People v Sanchez, 98 NY2d 373, 384 [2002]). A contrary ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones v Keane, NYLJ, June 7, 2002, at 25, col 3) is not binding on this Court (see Matter of DeBellis v Property Clerk of City of N.Y., 79 NY2d 49, 57 [1992]; People v Brown, 235 AD2d 344 [1997]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.