What is the test for compliance with the rule of Sandoval?

The record does not reflect that defendant was present as required (People v. Dokes, supra ). Moreover, the discussion held just prior to the jury being selected was not a new Sandoval hearing since there was no opportunity for the defendant to meaningfully participate and no argument about what convictions or bad acts could be brought out by the prosecutor. A mere repetition or recitation in the defendant's presence of what has already been determined in his absence is insufficient compliance with the Sandoval rule (People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 267, 604 N.Y.S.2d 494, 624 N.E.2d 631). Reasonable persons may differ on the meaning of a record and, contrary to the view of the dissent, the entire colloquy regarding Sandoval simply does not lead to the conclusion that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to participate in a Sandoval hearing. ^*

Accordingly, the case must be remitted for a hearing to determine whether or not defendant was present at that Sandoval proceeding (People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114). If defendant was not present, a new trial must be held, preceded by a Sandoval hearing at which defendant is present. If it is determined that defendant was present, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that result (People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d at 907, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114, supra ).