New York Court of Appeals, 2000

People v. FRANK GARCIA

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 19, 2000 · Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt Concur

95 N.Y.2d 946; 750 N.E.2d 1049; 727 N.Y.S.2d 1; 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3857

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Hector (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
The People v. Terrell Allen (N.Y. 2014)
People v. Floyd (N.Y. 2013)
People v. Alvarez (N.Y. 2012)
People v. Walston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Walston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Borukhova (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Alvarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Watson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Downs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Nazario (N.Y. 2005)
People v. DeJesus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Sanabria (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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 affirmed.

Defendant “unquestionably apprised” the trial court of his wish to have his girlfriend and uncle attend his trial (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 431, n). Thus, defendant adequately preserved his partial closure argument for purposes of appellate review.

On the merits, although the trial court may have been justified in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the officers’ testimony (see, People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498), on this record, it was error to exclude defendant’s girlfriend and uncle. At the Hinton hearings, the officers failed to address how their safety interest might be compromised by testifying in front of defendant’s girlfriend or uncle. Indeed, the officers “never even mentioned” any of defendant’s friends and family (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d, supra, at 430).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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