You are here: / / Abuse of Discretion in Disallowing Jury Challenge Required Reversal of...

Abuse of Discretion in Disallowing Jury Challenge Required Reversal of Conviction

In reversing a conviction because of the trial court’s refusal to consider an “untimely” peremptory challenge, the Second Department wrote:

During the second round of voir dire, after questioning of the second group of prospective jurors was completed and each side had exercised challenges for cause, the Supreme Court asked defense counsel if he wished to exercise any peremptory challenges, and defense counsel responded, “No.” Seconds later, as the court named the first three prospective jurors in the group to be assigned seats, defense counsel interrupted, apologizing, and explained that he had intended to exercise a peremptory challenge against one of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, prospective juror number four. Although that prospective juror was not yet assigned a seat and the reuest was made just moments after defense counsel mistakenly accepted all of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, the court denied defense counsel’s request to challenge that juror as untimely. Under these circumstances, where there was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request to challenge the prospective juror …. Since a trial court’s improper denial of a peremptory challenge mandates automatic reversal …, we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial ….  People v Parrales, 2013 NY Slip Op 02417, 2011-05827, Ind No 1194/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OFFERED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS; THE EXPLANATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO CUSTODY AS SOLE SURVIVING PARENT, HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ENTITLE HER CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, SOME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY WAS REJECTED AS INCREDIBLE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEVEL THREE ENCOUNTER WAS JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT IS NOT IN THE MILITARY IS A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNLESS THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATES HE OR SHE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MILITARY (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident... Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s...