You are here: / / HERE THE ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE COUNT WAS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT...

HERE THE ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE COUNT WAS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER; THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE TERM “INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT” WAS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that assault in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of assault on a police officer and the assault second conviction must therefore be reversed and the count dismissed:

Counts are concurrent when “concurrent sentences only may be imposed in case of conviction thereon,” and such counts “are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [3], [4]). Here, concurrent sentencing was required inasmuch as the same conduct formed the basis of each count … and, as charged here, assault in the second degree is a lesser included offense of assault on a police officer … . People v Felong, 2021 NY Slip Op 01901, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

You might also like
VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE ARGUMENT SURVIVES THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASSERT THE DEPRIVATION INFECTED THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA (FOURTH DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VISITATION HEARD DESPITE THE FACT THAT GRANDMOTHER HAD BEEN GRANTED VISITATION WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; DISSENT ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY THE TENANT, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPAID WATER CHARGES INCURRED BY THE TENANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED SHOOTING; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR FOR THAT EVIDENCE; THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TREAT THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES AS HOSTILE WITNESSES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Duty to Defend

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

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM BEFORE FORMING THE INTENT... WHERE THE BANK ATTEMPTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS...