Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Gebrosky, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1992-11-19
Citations: 80 N.Y.2d 995
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Gebrosky, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 995–996

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Gebrosky, Appellant.
Argued October 15,1992;
decided November 19, 1992
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Paul Lewis, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Faith Crouchley and Jay M. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
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.