You are here: / / UPON CONVICTION OF ROBBERY SECOND, ROBBERY THIRD, AS A LESSER INCLUDED...

UPON CONVICTION OF ROBBERY SECOND, ROBBERY THIRD, AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department noted that robbery third is a lesser included offense of robbery second and must be dismissed upon conviction of robbery second:

… [R]obbery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree (see CPL 300.30[4] …). A verdict of guilt upon the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count (see CPL 300.40[3]). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction of robbery in the third degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment … . People v Hardy, 2022 NY Slip Op 04820, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Upon conviction of the greater offense, a lesser included offense must be dismissed.

 

You might also like
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PHYSICAL INJURY ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SENTENCING AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER.
Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Should Not Have Been Considered in SORA Risk Assessment—Criteria for an Upward Departure Explained
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
Law Office Failure Was Valid Excuse for Default—Answer Deemed Served in Absence of Cross Motion
ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
Request for Redacted Signatures on Sheriff’s Department Overtime Records Properly Granted—-Attorney’s Fees Properly Awarded
THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (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

A JURY NOTE WHICH REQUIRES NO ACTION BY THE COURT NEED NOT BE SHARED WITH DEFENSE... PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE...