You are here: / / IN THIS CASE INVOLVING A FATAL CAR ACCIDENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY...
,

IN THIS CASE INVOLVING A FATAL CAR ACCIDENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY “RACING” THE OTHER DRIVER, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE MANSLAUGHTER SECOND DEGREE CHARGE; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court’s dismissal of the indictment, determined the evidence of manslaughter second degree presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the charges of manslaughter in the second degree … . The evidence before the grand jury, if accepted as true, established that in addition to traveling at the excessive rate of speed of approximately 80 to 90 miles per hour, the defendant’s vehicle and the Porsche were weaving in and out of traffic, without braking or signaling. As the Porsche and the defendant’s vehicle approached a sharp bend in the roadway, they were traveling side-by-side, with the Porsche in the left lane. The defendant’s vehicle struck the Porsche while attempting to enter the left lane, which caused the Porsche to hit the left hand curb of the roadway and fly “at least a couple of hundred feet” in the air before coming to rest “at the bottom of the highway.” Two passengers riding in the Porsche were killed. Although the defendant told a police sergeant at the scene that he did not see the Porsche when he attempted to maneuver his vehicle into the left lane and believed that the Porsche was in his blind spot, he also stated that he was “kind of racing” with the Porsche … . People v Castro, 2022 NY Slip Op 00874, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, OFFICE SOUGHT NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED (SECOND DEPT).
CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY.
ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After Arrival at the School—Child Had Not Yet Entered the Orbit of the School’s Authority—Although School Voluntarily Undertook the Duty to Determine the Whereabouts of Absent Students, the Parents Were Not Aware of that Policy and Therefore Could Not Have Relied On It
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS MEDIDCAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE HOSPITAL-DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S... ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE...