You are here: / / DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED...

DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, who had just turned 14 at the time of the robbery, should have been adjudicated a youthful offender. The defendant had been placed in a program called “Project Redirect” which, had he successfully completed it, would have resulted in dismissal of the felony. Defendant, however, did not successfully complete the program:

“The youthful offender provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths . . . with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals” … . Here, the evidence before the court showed that the defendant participated with a group of other youths in a single robbery at an age when he was barely capable of being held criminally responsible for his conduct (see Penal Law § 30.00). Although the defendant did not fully comply with the requirements of the “Project Redirect” program, there is no indication in the record that he is incapable of rehabilitation. Indeed, no further criminal conduct was alleged during that time. Under these circumstances, in view of the defendant’s tender years, background, and lack of juvenile or criminal record, the interest of justice would be served by relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record … . People v Darius B., 2016 NY Slip Op 08371, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

CRIMINAL LAWDEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)

 

You might also like
Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (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

INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE. DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF...