Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sandra Balistreri, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-01-31
Citations: 14 Misc. 3d 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sandra Balistreri, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
[832 NYS2d 384]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sandra Balistreri, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
January 31, 2007
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, Hempstead (Kent V. Moston, Jeremy L. Goldberg and Christopher M. Cevasco of counsel), for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola (Karen Wigle Weiss and Douglas Noll of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment of conviction reversed, on the law, matter remanded to the court below for a new trial and temporary order of protection issued on August 16, 2004 reinstated.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). At the outset, we note that contrary to defendant's contention, a review of the record on appeal establishes that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant further contends that reversal is required because the court below erred in denying her challenge for cause of a prospective juror who stated that he would want to hear testimony from both the complainant and defendant to be fair in rendering a verdict. Without making a searching inquiry of the juror concerning this statement (see CPL 270.20 [1] [b]), the court below instructed the juror that he could not hold it against defendant if she did not testify at trial. The prospective juror's responses to defense counsel's follow-up inquiry, to the effect that he would want to hear testimony from "both sides" in order to "give a better judgment" and that he would "[n]ot necessarily" be able to render a fair verdict if defendant did not testify, were less than unequivocal assurances that he would set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict on the evidence (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 613-615 [2000]). Consequently, the court's denial of defendant's challenge for cause, where her peremptory challenges were eventually exhausted, constituted reversible error (see People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749 [2002]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600 [2000]). We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial.
Finally, we note that the permanent order of protection is - sued by the court below is vacated (see generally CPL 530.12 [5]; 530.13 [4]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316 [2004]) and the temporary order of protection is reinstated.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.