You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE,...
,

DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE “RESISTING ARREST;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s resisting-arrest conviction was against the weight of the evidence and dismissed the indictment. Defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest. His subsequent resistance, therefore, did not constitute resisting arrest:

As the People concede, defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence … . The undisputed evidence established that defendant was cooperative when he was placed under arrest, handcuffed, physically restrained, and surrounded by police officers … . Defendant’s subsequent physical resistance does not constitute resisting arrest, as he could not have intentionally “prevented or attempted to prevent a police officer from effecting an authorized arrest” by doing so (Penal Law § 205.30). People v Nesmith, 2025 NY Slip Op 06555, First Dept 11-25-24

Practice Point: Any resistance by a defendant which occurs after arrest does not constitute the crime of “resisting arrest.”

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER SIGNED, IT IS CLEAR THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT (FIRST DEPT)
PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND PROPERLY ALLEGED A CIVIL CONSPIRACY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
The Insurer Properly Reserved Its Rights to Disclaim Coverage When It Agreed to Defend a Legal Malpractice Action
PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A BICYCLIST, WAS STRUCK BY A TRUCK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR (FIRST 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

DURING MARCH AND APRIL 2020 CLAIMANT, WHO WORKED IN RETAIL IN CLOSE CONTACT... PETITIONERS, THE NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE...