You are here: / / STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING”...
, ,

STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING” THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF A VEHICLE CAN BE CHARGED TO THE JURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, determined the judge should not have charged the jury with the automobile presumption which ascribes possession of contraband inside a vehicle to the occupants of the vehicle. The evidence did not support the allegation that defendant “occupied” the vehicle. He was seen standing outside the vehicle and reaching inside through an open window. In addition the police officers should have been allowed to narrate the video saying the defendant could be seen inside the vehicle and reaching into the back seat:

… [T]he People admitted a surveillance video, which showed that the defendant briefly leaned his upper body through the open rear passenger side door of the Lincoln Navigator while standing on the vehicle’s running board. However, the video reflected that the defendant never lifted his feet from the running board to climb into the Lincoln Navigator or take a seat inside the vehicle … . Under the circumstances presented, the People’s contention that the defendant “occup[ied]” the vehicle within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.15(3) is without merit. … Supreme Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the automobile presumption. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01728, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: The automobile presumption of possession of the contents of a vehicle by the occupants of the vehicle does not apply to a person standing outside a vehicle and reaching inside through a window.

 

You might also like
THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FAILED TO FILE ITS CURRENT ADDRESS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE SINCE 2011; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ALLEGING IT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

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

EVEN THOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING,... THE VICTIM DIED BY STRANGULATION; THE DEFENSE WAS DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO...