You are here: / / Conviction Under Accomplice Liability Theory Reversed After a Weight of...
,

Conviction Under Accomplice Liability Theory Reversed After a Weight of the Evidence Analysis

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance under an accomplice liability theory, finding the conviction against the weight of the evidence. The officer who purchased the drugs assumed, based on circumstantial evidence, the drugs were supplied to the seller by the defendant (who was in a vehicle with the seller and a woman) but did not actually see any transaction between the defendant and the seller:

Although the officer testified that, based upon his training and experience as an undercover officer who had made over 500 buys, he believed that the codefendant received drugs from the defendant inside the vehicle, he admitted that he did not observe an exchange of money or drugs between the codefendant and the defendant. People v Curry, 2013 NY Slip Op 08455, 2nd Dept 12-18-13

 

 

You might also like
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.
THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT].
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
Grabbing and Spinning a Person Does Not Constitute Unlawful Imprisonment​
SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND 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

Abstention from Alcohol While Incarcerated and Exemplary Prison Record Did Not... Prosecutorial Misconduct and Defense Counsel’s Ineffectiveness Required R...