You are here: / / THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY...

THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the second-degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the first-degree murder counts:

As the People concede, the second-degree murder counts should be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the first-degree murder counts (see CPL 300.40[3][b]). People v Ortega, 2022 NY Slip Op 00828, First Dept 2-8-22

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MELTED ICE CREAM ON THE STAIRS, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE CREAM HAD BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE HOURS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Raise Question of Fact About Lack of Notice of Icy Condition
POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DECRIMINALIZING SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).
CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS TOO SMALL; PLAINTIFF-TENANTS ALLEGED THE LANDLORD DEREGULATED APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICERS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AS THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION WHICH CAUSED HIS SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST 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 PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS... THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS...