You are here: / / THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A...

THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A ROOFTOP WERE NOT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES, SENTENCES MUST BE CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined firing 13 shots from a rooftop into a group of people, killing one and wounding two, resulting in a murder and two assault convictions, were not separate events which would support consecutive sentences:

​

Under the circumstances of this case, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes were separate and distinct. Accordingly, the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment was improper … . People v Lopez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08016, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A ROOFTOP WERE NOT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES, SENTENCES MUST BE CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A ROOFTOP WERE NOT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES, SENTENCES MUST BE CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Revocation of Suspended Judgment Proper
BENEFICIARIES OF ESTATE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO PRESERVE AN ESTATE ASSET, ONLY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE HAS THAT POWER.
Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply
ALLEGATIONS THAT A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING FRAUD, DURESS, COERCION AND UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Motion to Amend Pleadings/Motion for Additional Depositions
HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK.
DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (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

PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES... DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE KNOWN HIS...