You are here: / / SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT...
,

SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT THROUGH THE DOOR, KILLING HER BOYFRIEND; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial on the possession of a weapon charge, over a strong dissent, ,determined defendant was entitled to a “lawful temporary possession of a weapon” jury instruction. Someone was trying to open the door to defendant’s home and she shot through the door, killing her boyfriend. She was acquitted of homicide:

Defendant testified that she had inadvertently discovered the firearm while attempting to protect herself in the face of an imminent threat, i.e., a person forcibly trying to enter her home. Specifically, she thought that her estranged husband, who had previously attacked her in her home, was the person attempting to forcibly enter the home. She discovered the firearm while trying to find in her kitchen an object to defend herself, and she did not know beforehand that the firearm was there. When the person at the door continued trying to enter the home, defendant shot through the door to scare him away. Thereafter, defendant saw that she had shot the victim—her boyfriend. She then dropped the firearm, and started to provide first aid. The firearm was not recovered after the shooting, and defendant did not know what happened to it. …

… [W]e conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence … that she came into possession of the firearm in a legally excusable manner that was not ” ‘utterly at odds with [any] claim of innocent possession’ ” … . …

We also conclude … there is a reasonable view thereof that defendant’s use of the firearm did not require a finding that she had used it in a dangerous manner … . People v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04827, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE SENTENCES EITHER BECAUSE THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL OR BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEAS WERE INDUCED BY THE PROMISE OF ILLEGAL CONCURRENT SENTENCES (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE SCAFFOLD SUCH THAT IT TIPPED WHEN A WHEEL WENT THROUGH A HOLE IN A DRAIN GRATE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED THIRD-PARTY ADMISSIONS REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL.
PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A GUIDANCE COUNSELOR IN THE 1980’S; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S SUIT TO GO FORWARD UNDER A PSEUDONYM (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID... THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHICH DID NOT OWN THE AREA...