You are here: / / ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE IS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT...

ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE IS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE; THE TWO COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the attempted assault second conviction as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of attempted assault in the first degree. Defendant had been convicted of both: The two counts should have been submitted to the jury in the alternative. People v Roach, 2023 NY Slip Op 05872, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

 

You might also like
Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender; Waiver of Appeal Not Valid
Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Causes of Action Dismissed as Duplicative
Larceny Jury Instruction Shifted Burden of Proof to Defendant—Reversal Required In Absence of Preservation of the Error
HERE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT AND FENCE FOR $2500; THE MEMORANDUM WAS NOT AN “INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY” AND THEREFORE “SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT” WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE POLICE IN THIS STREET STOP CASE MAY HAVE HAD CAUSE FOR A LEVEL ONE INQUIRY (A CAN IN A PAPER BAG), THEY IMMEDIATELY ENGAGED IN LEVEL TWO INVASIVE QUESTIONING FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE OPEN CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALMART STORE, NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANNULLED.
Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police Misconduct
RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET INCLUDED AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANNOTATION, MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO THE ANNOTATION (FOURTH 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

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY HAD REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IN A MATTER... MOTHER’S DECLINING HEALTH WAS A FACTOR IN THE COURT’S GRANTING MOTHER’S...