You are here: / / FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED...

FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department determined the prosecutor's failure to provide an adequate race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge to a black juror required reversal:

Here, during jury selection, the defendant made an application before the trial court pursuant to Batson, arguing that the prosecution was exercising its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner against prospective black jurors. The prosecutor proffered an explanation for challenging one of the two jurors at issue, stating that it was “just our instincts that we don't feel [prospective juror] number 4 would be a suitable juror for this particular trial.” This explanation was inadequate … . Under the circumstances, the fact that the prosecution, essentially, “offered no reason at all with respect to [its] challenge of the juror is dispositive of the Batson issue” … . People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 03758, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL)/BATSON CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.
RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED.
IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

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

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY... CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND FOR...