The People vs. Mednan Redzeposki, No. 74 (N.Y. 2006)

Linked as:

Text

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------

1 No. 74

The People &c., Appellant, v. Mednan Redzeposki, Respondent.

Jillian E. Wieder, for appellant.

Ellen Dille, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for consideration of the facts (see CPL 470.25 [2] [d], 470.40 [2] [b]).

Re: People v Redzeposki Page 2

"Before proceeding in defendant's absence, the court should . . .ma[ke] inquiry and recite[] on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant's absence was deliberate" (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899 [1990]). Here, the trial court properly inquired into defendant's absence and reasonably determined--based on the court's own observation as well as defense counsel's explanation--that defendant had deliberately left the courthouseshortly before announcement of the jury verdict.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for consideration of the facts (see CPL 470.25[2][d]; 470.40[2][b]), in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Decided June 6, 2006