People v. Gebrosky
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Favor (N.Y. 1993)
- People v. Hall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Dickerson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Krouth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. DiMartino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Wiley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Ballard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Board of Education v. Christa Construction, Inc. (N.Y. 1993)
- People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Fuller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Brockenshire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Cruz (N.Y. 1992)
- People v. Deets (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Dean (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Kirkland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Defendant’s absence from a material part of his Sandoval hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). The issue is reviewable, despite defendant’s failure to object, and the People’s contention that this case involves exceptional circumstances rendering defendant’s presence "superfluous” is unavailing (People v Dokes, supra, at 662).
Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.