You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION MERGED WITH OFFENSES...
,

DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION MERGED WITH OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying the merger doctrine and considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the unlawful imprisonment conviction must be vacated:

[Defendant was convicted] of coercion in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, menacing in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving … . * * *

… [U]pon exercising our interest of justice jurisdiction, we conclude that the merger doctrine precludes the defendant’s conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree because the confinement of the complaining witness in the defendant’s car was only the incidental means to the accomplishment of the conduct underlying the counts of which the defendant was acquitted … . Thus, the conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed. The defendant’s unpreserved contention that the merger doctrine applies to other offenses for which he was convicted is without merit … . People v Sims, 2021 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

You might also like
Most of Police Internal Investigation Report Deemed Immune from Disclosure
Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct of Judge Required New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case
Absent a Private Right of Action Expressly Granted by Statute, An Association Created by Statute Does Not Have the Capacity to Sue
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.
PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
FATHER’S ABILITY TO BRING FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS UNDERGOING TREATMENT OR COUNSELING (SECOND DEPT).
AN ELEVATED BOARDWALK WITH NO GUARDRAILS WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; THE VILLAGE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S RIDING OFF THE BOARDWALK (SECOND DEPT).
NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND WERE NOT INTER-AGENCY MATERIALS; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND 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 DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO AN ARMED FELONY, HE WAS AN “ELIGIBLE... A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY...