You are here: / / PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES...

PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES BY THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenge to defense peremptory juror challenges should not have been granted:

“[A]lthough appellate courts accord great deference to trial judges’ step three determinations, . . . there is no record support for Supreme Court’s rejection of defense counsel’s race-neutral reasons for striking [two panelists]. The People simply failed to meet their burden that racial discrimination was the motivating factor” … . Defense counsel presented facially race-neutral reasons for challenging the panelists at issue based on their having been crime victims or relatives of crime victims … , and there was no evidence of disparate treatment by defense counsel of similarly situated panelists … . The record otherwise fails to support the court’s finding that the race-neutral reasons given for these challenges were pretextual. People v Bloise, 2019 NY Slip Op 01363, First Dept 2-26-19

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF COVID-RELATED PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR CONDUCTING COMPLIANCE CONFERENCES; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITHOUT FATHER’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERS FROM UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER (USPD) MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE WAS EXCLUDED BELOW, VERDICT VACATED AND PETITION REINSTATED (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

MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE... ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE...