New York Court of Appeals, 1994

People v. Michalek

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 11, 1994 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur in Memorandum Judge Titone Taking No Part

631 N.E.2d 114; 82 N.Y.2d 906; 609 N.Y.S.2d 172; 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 1 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

56 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Monclavo (N.Y. 1996)
People v. Robles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Morrison (N.Y. 2018)
People v. Velasquez (N.Y. 2003)
People v. Morales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. McMoore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Parker (N.Y. 2018)
People v. Sanders (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Potter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Potter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Parris (N.Y. 2004)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Durda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Augustine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Byrd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. DeWitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Cedeno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Gillard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Hailey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

A pretrial in camera Sandoval hearing was held in the instant case for which there is no transcript in the record, at which the trial court determined that the People would be permitted to question defendant concerning a prior New York felony conviction, but not about the underlying facts of that conviction. At trial, shortly before defendant was to testify, the court reopened the Sandoval hearing and determined that the People would also be permitted to inquire of defendant regarding two recent New Jersey convictions as to which defendant had pleaded guilty but had not yet been sentenced, as well as the underlying facts of those convictions. Since it cannot be ascertained from the record whether defendant was present for either stage of the Sandoval hearing, and because the outcomes of both stages were "not wholly favorable” to defendant (People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267), the case must be remitted to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present during both stages of the hearing (People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872).

As to defendant’s claim that the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to question him regarding convictions for which he had not yet been sentenced, violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, we find this issue unpreserved because of defendant’s failure to specify this constitutional objection (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, n 3).

Upon remittal, if it is determined that defendant was not present during either stage of the Sandoval hearing, a new trial must be ordered; if it is determined that he was present during both stages, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that result.

*908 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum; Judge Titone taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.