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
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGATION THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE IN 1982 – 1983 WAS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO MEET THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADMINSTRATOR’S SIX-YEAR DELAYING IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTFF, COUPLED WITH THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE, THE BUS DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED; THE BUS STRUCK A VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED SUDDENLY AFTER IT WAS CUT OFF BY A THIRD VEHICLE; THE BUS DRIVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SUPPORTED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS 1999 MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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;...