| People v Meyers |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02064 [148 AD3d 1057] |
| March 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vincent Meyers, Appellant. |
Patrick Michael Megaro, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and PamelaKelly-Pincus of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.),dated March 12, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault inthe second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminalpossession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (twocounts), and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing inaccordance herewith regarding the item in the court file denominated "Court Exhibit # XIV," andthereafter a report to this Court limited to its findings, and the appeal is held in abeyance pendingreceipt of the Supreme Court's report, which shall be filed with all convenient speed.
An item in the court file marked "Court Exhibit # XIV" appears to be a jury note, or a draftof a jury note. The contents relate to instructions on the law and the progress of the jury'sdeliberations. The item was neither referred to in open court nor marked on the clerk's list ofcourt exhibits. The defendant contends that the item was a jury note and that the Supreme Courtdid not comply with CPL 310.30 in addressing it (see People v Mack, 27 NY3d 534, 538-539 [2016]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687,691-692 [2013]). The People contend that the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court,Nassau County, for a hearing. We agree that a hearing is appropriate. Accordingly, we remit thematter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to assess all the circumstancesregarding the item, including when and how it came to the court's attention and when it wasmarked as a court exhibit and placed into the court file, and thereafter a report to this Courtlimited to the Supreme Court's findings (see People v Mitchell, 129 AD3d 404, 404 [2015]). The appeal willbe held in abeyance pending receipt of the Supreme Court's report. We decide no other issues atthis time. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.