You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction, determined the People did not disprove the justification defense. The evidence demonstrated shots were fired at the car in which defendant was a passenger before defendant fired his weapon:

A person is justified in using deadly physical force against another person if they “reasonably believe[ ] that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force” (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). Deadly physical force “encompasses not merely the striking of the first blow or infliction of the first wound. It also encompasses acts by a person that cause the defendant reasonably to believe that the defendant is facing the ‘imminent threat’ of deadly force,” and therefore “the imminent threat to use a gun constitute[s] the threat of deadly physical force even if the gun is never fired” … . The evidence at trial established that defendant told the police that the unnamed assailants started shooting at the occupants of the vehicle before any shots were fired by those inside the vehicle. A witness to the shootout testified that she saw one of the unnamed assailants remove a gun out of his pocket and then she saw and heard gunshots. The evidence further established that multiple rounds were fired at the vehicle from the outside. Contrary to the People’s contention, they did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, who was not the driver of the vehicle, could have retreated with complete personal safety before he used deadly physical force, or that he knew he could do so … . People v Major, 2026 NY Slip Op 04585, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Multiple shots were fired at the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger before defendant fired his weapon. The People failed to disprove the justification defense and the manslaughter conviction was reversed.

 

You might also like
BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUSORY COUNT OF THE TWO BURGLARY FIRST COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions of Fact Whether Name Added to Bank Account Created a Convenience Account or a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship
ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION, THE TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DESCRIBING THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT CREDIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).
CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO INCOME ABOVE THE STATUTORY CAP (FOURTH DEPT).
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLACEMENT OF A RUG CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended by Stipulation

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

DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN AS HE ATTEMPTED TO CROSS THE ROAD;... THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE...