Opinion
November 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
In the midst of the defendant's direct testimony, the trial court ordered a weekend recess and directed the defendant not to discuss his testimony with his counsel during that time. We agree with the defendant's contention on appeal that the court's direction violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and requires a new trial (see, Geders v United States, 425 U.S. 80; People v Blount, 159 A.D.2d 579, affd 77 N.Y.2d 888, cert denied ___ US ___, 116 L Ed 2d 42; People v Hagen, 86 A.D.2d 617). Unlike the 15-minute break at issue in Perry v Leeke ( 488 U.S. 272), it cannot be presumed that, "nothing but the [defendant's] testimony will be discussed" (Perry v Leeke, supra, at 284) during a weekend recess. In such a long recess, a defendant is entitled to "unrestricted access to his lawyer" even though their "discussions will inevitably include some consideration of the defendant's ongoing testimony" (Perry v Leeke, supra, at 284).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.