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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MELTED ICE CREAM ON THE STAIRS, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE CREAM HAD BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT NEW YORK’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN “MAJORITY-MINORITY” NEIGHBORHOODS; COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ITSELF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND WAS OTHERWISE DEFICIENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF TWO PRIOR BURGLARIES WAS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE, THE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARIES RENDERED THE EVIDENCE TOO PREJUDICIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE REMAINING CHARGES IS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO 50% OF THE APPRECIATION OF WIFE’S SEPARATE PROPERTY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A 2021 BUYBACK AGEEMENT BETWEEN A NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND A NATURAL GAS SELLER WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF A WINTER STORM WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PRODUCER’S ABILITY TO DELIVER THE USUAL AMOUNT OF GAS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED BASED UPON THE “FORCE MAJEURE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL 2019 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (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)...