You are here: / / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND...

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND THE NEED TO REFRAIN FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE OTHER ROBBERY; THE MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion the sever the trials of two distinct robberies should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated the need to testify about his defense of duress re: one of the robberies, and his need to refrain from testifying re: the other robbery due to  the Sandoval ruling:

The affirmative defense of duress requires the defendant to establish coercion by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force (Penal Law § 40.00[1]). Since the defendant’s written statement did not explain why the defendant did not abandon the Lopez robbery once he was given a gun, the written statement was insufficient to establish that there was a threat of imminent use of physical force … . Indeed, the People argued to the jury that the defendant’s duress defense should be rejected since, once the defendant was given the gun, he could have left the scene without committing the robbery. Thus, the record convincingly established that the defendant had important testimony to give about his duress defense in order to, inter alia, rebut the People’s argument that the defendant was not under duress … . …

… [T]he defendant convincingly showed that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying in regards to the Pratt robbery. In the event that the defendant testified, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling permitted the People to introduce evidence of the underlying facts of two prior youthful offender adjudications involving robberies that were similar to the Pratt robbery … . Thus, if the defendant elected to testify, he would expose himself to the “risk of serious impeachment” with the underlying facts of two robberies bearing similarities to the Pratt robbery … . However, if he refrained from testifying, he was prejudiced in his ability to present his duress defense to the Lopez robbery counts. People v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 01645, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

You might also like
NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.
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).
Under the Circumstances, the Filing of a Family Offense Petition Against the Father and the Issuance of an Order of Protection Made the Children Dependent on a Juvenile Court, a Prerequisite for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR PATERNITY DNA TESTING WITHOUT REQUIRING PUTATIVE FATHER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE; COUNTY HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BRING A PATERNITY ACTION WHEN THE MOTHER OR CHILD IS LIKELY TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE.
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
AFTER THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A PHYSICALLY DISABLED CHILD” CONVICTION (BY GUILTY PLEA) ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AGAIN VACATED THE CONVICTION ON “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE” GROUNDS; THE MEDICAL RECORDS INDICATED THE CHILD WAS NOT BURNED BY HOT WATER, BUT RATHER SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO MEDICATION (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

A REVOLVER WHICH COULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE SHOOTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS;...