You are here: / / THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY;...
,

THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the burglary second count, determined the People’s request to instruct the jury on burglary second as a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense should not have been granted. Although burglary second is a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense, the People’s case focused only on the sexual motivation. Defendant therefore did not have notice the jury would consider burglary second:

… [T]he court improperly charged the lesser-included offense because the People, through the way they presented their case, deprived defendant of notice of the possibility that the jury would be asked to consider a lesser-included. In People v Barnes (50 NY2d 375 [1980]), the Court of Appeals observed that, where the People in a burglary case limit to a particular crime the act that the defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in a building, “the court is obliged to hold the prosecution to this narrower theory alone” … . * * *

In opposing defendant’s pretrial motion to sever certain charges in the indictment from the others, the People focused exclusively on defendant’s sexual harassment of the complainant, and on his grabbing the arm and pulling the shirt of another woman he encountered in the dorm. In making an application for the admission of certain Molineux evidence, the prosecutor focused only on the theory that defendant entered the dorm to satisfy his own sexual urges. And, in his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully entered the private area of a dorm to do exactly what he had been doing minutes prior — to grab, to grope and to harass the young women who lived there.” Further, the prosecutor downplayed the behavior defendant displayed towards some men he saw in the lobby of the dorm, stating that “the evidence will show that he was substantially motivated by his desire to abuse women when he passed that turnstile and unlawfully entered the private area of the dorm.” People v Seignious, 2022 NY Slip Op 00948, First Dept 2-10-22

 

You might also like
School’s Knowledge that Infant-Plaintiff Was Being Taunted and Bullied Did Not Constitute Notice that Another Student Would Act Violently Toward Infant-Plaintiff—Supervision Could Not Have Prevented the Sudden Action by the Student Who Pushed Infant-Plaintiff
THE BANK DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT VIOLATED THE SEPARATE-ENVELOPE RULE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY BY PHONE DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT, EVEN IF THE COMMUNICATION WAS REDUCED TO WRITING; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO SOLD GOODS TO NEW JERSEY COMPANIES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT FULLY PAID, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK JURISDICTION; FACTS PLED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION; SITUS OF THE INJURY WAS NEW JERSEY, NOT NEW YORK.

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

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT... PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT...