You are here: / / MURDER SECOND DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER FIRST (SECOND...

MURDER SECOND DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER FIRST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the murder second degree conviction should have been dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of murder first degree:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25(1) under count 2 of the indictment, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated and that count dismissed because that charge constitutes an inclusory concurrent count of the conviction of murder in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(viii) (see CPL 300.40[3][b] …). People v Morel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04032, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN AN ANDERS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THERE ARE NO NONFRIVOLOUS ISSUES WARRANTING APPEAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL, HERE THE MISSING ISSUE WAS DEEMED INCONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement
Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described
Plaintiff’s Own Negligence Broke Any Causal Chain Between Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Injury
OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT.

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

DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING... DEFENDANT DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-ACCIDENT...