People v Jackson
2009 NY Slip Op 01500 [59 AD3d 736]
February 24, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Andrew Jackson, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin D. Gold of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, andAdam P. Wolf of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal,J.), rendered April 3, 2006, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contemptin the first degree (three counts), and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waivedhis right to be present during sidebar questioning of prospective jurors (see People vAntommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 [1992]). The defendant, defense counsel, and the court signed avalid written waiver (see People vVelasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 49 [2003]; People v Smith, 253 AD2d 470, 471 [1998]),and the defendant did not object to being absent during sidebar conferences (see People vPeople, 223 AD2d 732, 732-733 [1996]).

The defendant contends that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to aprospective juror who failed to provide unequivocal assurance that he could be fair andimpartial. Since the defendant failed to exercise an available peremptory challenge against theprospective juror after the court denied his challenge for cause, any claim as to that juror isdeemed waived (see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, 1146[1985]; People v Pagan, 191 AD2d 651 [1993]).

Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to exercise a[*2]peremptory challenge against that prospective juror after thecourt denied his challenge for cause did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,152 [2005]). Viewed in totality, the record reveals that the attorney provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Fisher, J.P., Dillon,Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.