You are here: / / NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW...

NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on the criminal possession of a weapon counts.  The People requested a jury instruction for constructive possession and the instruction was given. The evidence at trial did not provide a basis for the instruction:

After the gunpoint robbery of the supermarket, committed by a single perpetrator, the defendant was arrested when he was found hiding in an attic of a nearby house. Shortly thereafter, police officers recovered a gun from the attic. The People sought to prove at trial, among other things, that the defendant was the individual who committed the robbery with the gun recovered from the attic. In the bill of particulars and throughout the trial, the People’s theory on the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was that the defendant possessed the subject gun in the supermarket. Even at the charge conference, at which the People requested a charge of constructive possession, the People maintained that the basis of those counts was the defendant’s possession of the gun in the supermarket. Since there was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant constructively possessed the gun in the supermarket, that charge should not have been given … . People v Golden, 2017 NY Slip Op 00661, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

You might also like
THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE HE COMMITTED HIS SECOND OFFENSE BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED FOR HIS FIRST OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

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

SPEED OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE HIS COMPARATIVE N... MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIE...