You are here: / / PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES...

PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES BY THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenge to defense peremptory juror challenges should not have been granted:

“[A]lthough appellate courts accord great deference to trial judges’ step three determinations, . . . there is no record support for Supreme Court’s rejection of defense counsel’s race-neutral reasons for striking [two panelists]. The People simply failed to meet their burden that racial discrimination was the motivating factor” … . Defense counsel presented facially race-neutral reasons for challenging the panelists at issue based on their having been crime victims or relatives of crime victims … , and there was no evidence of disparate treatment by defense counsel of similarly situated panelists … . The record otherwise fails to support the court’s finding that the race-neutral reasons given for these challenges were pretextual. People v Bloise, 2019 NY Slip Op 01363, First Dept 2-26-19

 

You might also like
THE PHRASE “CONSUMMATION OF THE ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE” IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, A CONDITION PRECEDENT, MEANT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, NOT SEXUAL RELATIONS; THE WIFE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE COUPLE NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WAS REJECTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained
A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
SNATCHING A PURSE DANGLING FROM THE VICTIM’S ARM DID NOT INVOVLE THE PHYSICAL FORCE NECESSARY FOR ROBBERY THIRD, RENDERING THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).
OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (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

MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE... ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE...