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
Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial
THE GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY COVID-19 TOLLS OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW FOR FILING CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CAUSES OF ACTION BY 228 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.
A COMPLAINT THAT IS NEVER SERVED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN “ACTION;” HERE A PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED; THEREFORE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS ANOTHER IDENTICAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (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...