You are here: / / A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A HANDGUN TAKEN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE SHOOTING...
,

A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A HANDGUN TAKEN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE SHOOTING WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS TENDING TO SHOW HIS IDENTITY AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a photograph of defendant with a small handgun taken six weeks before the charged shooting was properly admitted in evidence:

A photograph of defendant holding a small handgun, taken approximately six weeks before the charged shooting, and recovered from defendant’s phone pursuant to the warrant, was properly admitted. It could be inferred from video footage introduced at trial that a small handgun was used in the shooting. As in People v Alexander (169 AD3d 571 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 927 [2019]), the photograph was “relevant to show that defendant had access to such a weapon, thus tending to establish his identity as the perpetrator, and there was no requirement of proof that the [firearm] in the photograph was the actual weapon used in the crime” … . People v Bush, 2020 NY Slip Op 07722, First Dept 12-22-20

 

You might also like
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11.
Tenant Who Successfully Defended a Landlord’s Holdover Action Entitled to Attorney’s Fees
AN ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION ON AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE IS NOT A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; THEREFORE THE ANSWER DID NOT VOID THE POLICY WHICH REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT (FIRST DEPT). ​
GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS, APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS.
A CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ITEMS LAWFULLY IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION WILL NOT LIE UNLESS PLAINTIFF FIRST DEMANDED THEIR RETURN (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN A TENNESSEE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS BORN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED, WAS A DISTRIBUTEE OF HIS FATHER’S ESTATE; IT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT YOUSEF FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED HE WAS THE SOLE HEIR WHEN HE TRANSFERRED REAL PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT BASMANOV (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (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

ALTHOUGH THE PARENTS HAD BEEN FOUND TO HAVE ABUSED THE CHILDREN, THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED... DESPITE THE HORRIFIC NATURE OF THE CRIME, DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REDUCED...