PEOPLE v. EADY

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his exclusion from the Sandoval hearing requires reversal. In defendant's absence County Court conducted a Sandoval conference in chambers wherein it ruled on the permissible scope of defendant's cross-examination relative to his prior convictions. Defense counsel, with defendant present, subsequently placed on the record his understanding of the Sandoval conference and the court's ruling. In People v. Alexander ( 174 A.D.2d 996, revd 80 N.Y.2d 801), a virtually identical Sandoval procedure was rejected as violating defendant's right to be present at a material stage of trial. Even absent objection by defense counsel, defendant's exclusion from the Sandoval hearing mandates reversal and the granting of a new trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions contained in defense counsel's brief and defendant's pro se brief and find them to be without merit.