You are here: / / BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUDED CONCURRENT COUNT OF...

BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUDED CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY FIRST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the sentence and dismissing the count, determined burglary second is a lesser included concurrent count of burglary first:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree under Penal Law § 140.25(2), as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated and that count dismissed as a lesser included concurrent count of burglary in the first degree under Penal Law § 140.30(4) (see CPL 300.40[3][b] …). People v Joseph, 2022 NY Slip Op 02282, Second Dept 4-6-22

 

You might also like
AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACOTRS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Whether Arbitrator Erred In Applying the Applicable Law Is Beyond the Courts’ Review Powers
CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Establish It Was the Lawful Holder of the Note on the Date the Action Was Commenced

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 ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES;... IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION,...