You are here: / / REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT.

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT.

The First Department determined, in this bench trial, the court's failure to notify counsel, prior to summations, that it would consider a lesser included offense (attempted robbery) was reversible error. After the court found defendant guilty of attempted robbery, upon objection, the court allowed defense counsel to reopen his summation and issued another verdict. The First Department held the trial court did not have the power to reconsider the case after verdict:

The trial court's failure to comply with CPL 320.20(5) by not notifying the parties that it intended to consider a lesser included offense until after it rendered the original verdict, constitutes reversible error. “After formal rendition of a verdict at a bench trial, a trial court lacks authority to reweigh the factual evidence and reconsider the verdict” … . Here, it is undisputed that upon defendant's CPL 330.30 motion, the court reopened summations, and rendered a new verdict. Although this Court has previously held that failure to comply with CPL 320.20(5) constitutes harmless error when the defendant has the opportunity to address the lesser included offenses in a new summation … , the same cannot be said here where the trial court attempted to rectify its error only after it rendered the verdict. …

We agree that the double jeopardy clause bars a new trial on the original indictment. The People must secure a new indictment if they wish to pursue further prosecution on the lesser included charge … . People v Agola, 2016 NY Slip Op 04004, 1st Dept 5-24-16

CRIMINAL LAW (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT)/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (IN A BENCH TRIAL, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO FAIL TO NOTIFY COUNSEL, PRIOR TO SUMMATIONS, OF CONSIDERATION OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

You might also like
WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Comply with California Insurance Law Rendered Arbitration Clauses in Agreements Issued by a California Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carrier Unenforceable
THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (PART 2 OF THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT OF 1986), WHICH LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS A VACCINE TO $1000, DOES NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY TREAT A VACCINATED PERSON FOR A VACCINE-RELATED CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-INVESTOR’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF ITS DRUG WAS MISLEADING AND VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SECURITIES ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS AND SOLD IN NEW YORK BY CHRISTIE’S PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST 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

PURCHASER OF UNSOLD SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE BOUND BY A STIPULATION TO WHICH... FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1)...