Apparently, a jury foreperson sent a note to the judge indicating he wasn't comfortable reading the verdict. (The foreperson later signed an affidavit claiming other jurors had coerced his decision.)
Figueroa claimed that the judge failed to follow proper procedures because the court responded to the note in Figueroa's absence. And when the Bronx County Supreme Court denied his motion to set aside the verdict, Figueroa appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which again found no basis to disturb the outcome.
Since nothing about the law, the facts of the case, or the verdict was discussed, the AD1 was of the opinion that Figueroa's presence wasn't required. (The trial court only sought to clarify what the foreperson's discomfort signified.)
How comfortable does that make you?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Figueroa