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
A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY MEMBER RESIDES, AS WELL AS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.
THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS WHICH PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHILE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE ALLEGED THE OTHER VEHICLE CHANGED LANES ABRUPTLY AND CAME TO A STOP IN FRONT OF HIM; THAT CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (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

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,...