You are here: / / ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND...

ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that assault third is an inclusory concurrent count of assault second:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree (see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law §§ 120.05[2]; 120.00[1] …). People v Cullins, 2020 NY Slip Op 07219, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

You might also like
RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS DESPITE HER VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SUSPENDED JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT.
UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT).
FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE STUDENT’S ACTIONS WERE IMPULSIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.
PLAINTIFF PLACED THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER ON SMALL LANDSCAPING ROCKS WHICH GAVE WAY CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S... DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE...