New York Court of Appeals, 2000

People v. Artist

People v. Artist
New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 14, 2000
95 N.Y.2d 944; 745 N.E.2d 384; 722 N.Y.S.2d 465; 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3800

People v. Artist

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*945The record demonstrates that defendant’s argument, that he was denied his right to a jury trial and due process as a result of the substitution of the Trial Judge during jury deliberations, is unpreserved (see, People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840; People v Thompson, 90 NY2d 615, 621). Defendant’s argument that the substitute Judge failed to exercise her discretion in ruling that the jury could not be released from sequestration is similarly unpreserved (see, People v Shaw, 90 NY2d 879, 880).

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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