You are here: / / ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY...

ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the attempted second degree murder count must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of attempted first degred murder:

… [T]he part of the judgment convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree must be reversed and count two of the indictment dismissed because attempted murder in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of attempted murder in the first degree … . People v Mcdonald, 2020 NY Slip Op 07825, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

You might also like
THE CONDEMNATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WAS NOT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES; THE DETERMINATION TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNULLED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROSECUTION HAD OFFERED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WITNESS’S BOYFRIEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION IN THE ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE WAS SUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Was Authorized Under Both State and Federal Law to Prosecute a Case Stemming from the Provision of Federal Medicare Services
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION HE WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT FLED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BY LANDLORDS AGAINST POTENTIAL TENANTS BASED UPON SOURCE OF INCOME; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ONCE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS PROPERLY SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PURCHASE,... THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE,...