You are here: / / DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO WHITE JURORS NOT SUPPORTED BY RACE-NEUTRAL...

DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO WHITE JURORS NOT SUPPORTED BY RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS; THE ALLEGED ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense peremptory challenges to prospective white jurors were not justified on race-neutral grounds and the alleged error in instructing the jury on the justification defense was not preserved:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in disallowing his peremptory challenges to two prospective white jurors because he provided sufficient race-neutral explanations for challenging them … . However, defense counsel’s proffered explanations for challenging the two jurors “amounted, essentially, to no reason at all” … . Thus, we agree with the court’s determination that the proffered explanations were pretextual and with the court’s disallowal of the defendant’s peremptory challenges. Moreover, the court did not act improperly by, sua sponte, directing the defendant’s counsel to provide race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges … .

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s instruction to the jury regarding the defense of justification was erroneous because the court included an instruction regarding the use of physical force to resist arrest. This contention is without merit. The justification charge, taken as a whole, correctly instructed the jury as to the defense of justification, and was a correct statement of the applicable law (see CPL 300.10[2] … ). The defendant also contends that the justification instruction was erroneous because the court did not instruct the jurors that, if they found the defendant not guilty of charges of attempted murder in the first degree based on the defense of justification, they were not to consider the lesser counts of aggravated assault upon a police officer and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer. The defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Foxworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 07790, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

You might also like
Police Officer Who Refused a Light-Duty Assignment Was Not Entitled to Disability Benefits Pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c
A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE VIRGINIA DIVORCE DID NOT CHANGE THE PARTIES’ STATUS FROM TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY TO TENANTS IN COMMON FOR THEIR NEW YORK MARITAL RESIDENCE; NEW YORK FOLLOWS THE “DIVISIBLE DIVORCE” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN THIS PEDESTRIAN HIT-AND-RUN ACTION WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION WHEN PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED A SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT TAXICAB COMPANY AND THE DRIVERS WHO WERE ON DUTY WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Duty to Defend Versus Duty to Indemnify—Question of Fact About Whether Intentional Conduct Policy Exclusion Applies
HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED SALE-DATE AND DISPOSED OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY AT THE TIME OF THE SALE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE LIEN LAW AND DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHIDH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR IDENTIFIED (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

42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT;... THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE...