Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was present at a Sandoval hearing conducted on May 10, 1990, and, if not, whether he was informed of the contents of the May 10, 1990, Sandoval hearing, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that his conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered because he was not present during the discussion of the Sandoval application on May 10, 1990 (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v. Jackson, 203 A.D.2d 303). However, inasmuch as the record is unclear with respect to this issue, and because the decision rendered was not wholly favorable to the defendant, we remit the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was in fact present and, if not, whether he was informed of the contents of that discussion (see, People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906; People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254; People v. Parchment, 203 A.D.2d 595).
We reach no other issues at this juncture. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.