From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rosario

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 7, 1994
639 N.E.2d 1131 (N.Y. 1994)

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1994

Decided July 7, 1994

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Phyllis Orlikoff Flug, J.

Elon Harpaz, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for Hilario Rosario, appellant.

Ronna Gordon-Galchus, Kew Gardens, for Jose Lopez, appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens (Linda Cantoni and Steven J. Chananie of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

In these cases involving charges of criminal narcotics sale arising out of a street "buy and bust," the trial court erred by closing the trial to the public during the undercover officers' testimony. The trial court's ruling in 1991 was based on a legal standard that is no longer viable under our analysis and holding in People v Martinez ( 82 N.Y.2d 436), decided in 1993.

In view of our disposition of the closure issue, we have no need to reach the parties' arguments regarding the claimed Rosario violation.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Rosario

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 7, 1994
639 N.E.2d 1131 (N.Y. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Rosario

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HILARIO ROSARIO…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 7, 1994

Citations

639 N.E.2d 1131 (N.Y. 1994)
639 N.E.2d 1131
616 N.Y.S.2d 334

Citing Cases

People v. Thompson

For all these reasons, the court held that a CPL 330.30 (1) motion is unauthorized under these circumstances.…

People v. Kronberg

These facts critically undercut the hearing court's conclusion that the New York AAGs had access to and used…