People v Frank (Linsley)

[*1] People v Frank (Linsley) 2014 NY Slip Op 51204(U) Decided on August 11, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 11, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570925/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Linsley R. Frank, Defendant-Appellant.

In consolidated criminal actions, defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), each rendered November 30, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of violating New York City Administrative Code sections 19-506(b) and 19-507(a)(4), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (John Cataldo, J.), rendered November 30, 2011, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

The court erred in conducting the trial of this Summons Part prosecution in defendant's absence. Even if the notation in the court file that defendant was "Parkerized" prior to trial can fairly be read to mean that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 [1982]), the court, so far as shown, failed on the trial date to inquire into defendant's whereabouts on the trial date, much less to expressly determine that defendant's absence was deliberate or state any grounds for reaching any such conclusion (see People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899 [1990]; Matter of Joelin V., 107 AD3d 511, 512 [2013]). We note that defendant arrived in court later that day after the trial concluded.

Since the violation of defendant's fundamental right to be present at trial mandates reversal, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: August 11, 2014