WHERE AN ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD CHARGE IS BASED UPON THE USE OF FORCE, THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IS AVAILABLE IF SUPPORTED BY A REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, with a concurring opinion, determined the defendant was entitled to the justification jury instruction in this endangering-the -welfare-of-a-child prosecution:

The relevant statutory text and our precedent confirm that a justification instruction pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 may be available for a charge of endangering the welfare of a child that is premised on the use of force. We also conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence here in support of the defense, and the refusal to charge the justification defense was not harmless. * * *

… [T]he defendant shared a home with his girlfriend, J.L., and her fifteen-year-old son, R.T. During a night out, the defendant and J.L. argued and returned home. Each went back out to a bar, and they eventually returned home again, still quarreling. A physical altercation between the defendant and R.T. ensued, leaving R.T. on the floor, seemingly unconscious. * * *

Article 35 instructs that, “[i]n any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense” … . And the self-defense justification defense, set forth in section 35.15, includes no limiting or qualifying language regarding the availability of the defense. We thus see no basis in Article 35’s broad language for denying a section 35.15 justification defense in a prosecution involving a charge of endangering the welfare of a child. * * *

When a prosecution for endangering the welfare of a child is based on the use of force, a charge of justification pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 is available if there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support it. To the extent that [Varela (164 AD2d 924), and Williams (102 AD3d 566)] are inconsistent with that holding, they should not be followed. People v Mears, 2026 NY Slip Op 06237, CtApp 10-27-26