You are here: / / SIDEWALK WAS NOT USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT CASE.

SIDEWALK WAS NOT USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT CASE.

The Second Department determined, under the facts, the sidewalk was not “used” as a dangerous instrument by the defendant. The defendant punched the victim who then fell and struck his head on the sidewalk, suffering very serious injury. Although it is possible to intentionally or recklessly “use” a sidewalk as a dangerous instrument, here the sidewalk was not “used” by the defendant to cause injury withn the meaning of the assault statute (Penal Law 120.05(4)):

We agree with the People's interpretation of Penal Law § 120.05(4) that the reckless mens rea must be read to modify the phrase “by means of . . . a dangerous instrument” (see Penal Law § 15.05[3]), and that the statute does not, as the Supreme Court held, require “purposeful use” of the dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 15.15[1]…). However, we disagree with the People's contention that Penal Law § 120.05(4) does not require that the serious physical injury be recklessly caused by the use of a dangerous instrument. Such a reading of the statute ignores the definition of dangerous instrument, which expressly focuses on the circumstances in which the instrument is “used” (Penal Law § 10.00[13]), and the use-oriented approach that has evolved directly from that definition … . Moreover, a person can “use” a dangerous instrument in a reckless manner … . Therefore, a conviction under Penal Law § 120.05(4) requires legally sufficient evidence establishing that the defendant recklessly “used” the dangerous instrument. People v McElroy, 2016 NY Slip Op 03897, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SIDEWALK WAS NOT USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT CASE)/ASSAULT (SIDEWALK WAS NOT USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT CASE)/DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (SIDEWALK WAS NOT USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT CASE)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS TO BE WITH FATHER IN THIS TEMPORARY CUSTODY PROCEEDING, ALLEGATIONS OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REQUIRED A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE THE B MISDEMEANOR CARRIES DEPORTATION AS A POTENTIAL PENALTY, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty
FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (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

FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE... 33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY...