You are here: / / PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S...
, ,

PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecutor’s untrue claim, made in summation and immediately objected to, that defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim, required a new trial:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments during summation that the defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim had no evidentiary support in the record. The remarks, which were promptly objected to by defense counsel, were highly prejudicial and ultimately deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … , particularly as the Supreme Court refused to give any curative instruction or grant a mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s improper comments. People v Day, 2019 NY Slip Op 08858, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

You might also like
“Service Charge” Could Be “Gratuity” to Which Employer Not Entitled
AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; CREDIBILITY ISSUES PLAY NO ROLE AT THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT).
DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON PRIOR ARRESTS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR A WEAPON WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AFTER COVID REACHED NEW YORK CITY) WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A ONE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION CASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGERS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF DRIVER CREATED A “PECUNIARY” CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGERS; THE ATTORNEY WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING ALL THE PLAINTIFFS (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

MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A DOCTOR PROPERLY SEVERED FROM A NEGLIGENT HIRING... PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT...