You are here: / / THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT...
,

THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE OFFICE PROSECUTING THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel’s for cause challenge to a juror who was an assistant district attorney in the office which was prosecuting the defendant should have been granted:

… [D]uring jury selection, the subject prospective juror informed the Supreme Court that she was presently working as an assistant district attorney, within the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, the same agency that was prosecuting the defendant, and that she was familiar with the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the Justice. As the People correctly concede, the juror’s contemporaneous working relationship with the agency prosecuting the defendant required that juror’s dismissal for cause … . People v Cortes, 2022 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: The for cause challenge to the prospective juror who was an assistant district attorney in the same office which was prosecuting the defendant should have been granted; new trial ordered.

 

You might also like
Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
Nonparents Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Bring Petition to Adopt
FATHER ALLEGED CHANGES IN HIS WORK SCHEDULE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS WITH THE CHILD; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED ON FATHER’S MODIFICATION PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.

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 DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY... ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE...