You are here: / / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND...

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND THE NEED TO REFRAIN FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE OTHER ROBBERY; THE MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion the sever the trials of two distinct robberies should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated the need to testify about his defense of duress re: one of the robberies, and his need to refrain from testifying re: the other robbery due to  the Sandoval ruling:

The affirmative defense of duress requires the defendant to establish coercion by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force (Penal Law § 40.00[1]). Since the defendant’s written statement did not explain why the defendant did not abandon the Lopez robbery once he was given a gun, the written statement was insufficient to establish that there was a threat of imminent use of physical force … . Indeed, the People argued to the jury that the defendant’s duress defense should be rejected since, once the defendant was given the gun, he could have left the scene without committing the robbery. Thus, the record convincingly established that the defendant had important testimony to give about his duress defense in order to, inter alia, rebut the People’s argument that the defendant was not under duress … . …

… [T]he defendant convincingly showed that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying in regards to the Pratt robbery. In the event that the defendant testified, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling permitted the People to introduce evidence of the underlying facts of two prior youthful offender adjudications involving robberies that were similar to the Pratt robbery … . Thus, if the defendant elected to testify, he would expose himself to the “risk of serious impeachment” with the underlying facts of two robberies bearing similarities to the Pratt robbery … . However, if he refrained from testifying, he was prejudiced in his ability to present his duress defense to the Lopez robbery counts. People v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 01645, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR FOR MARIJUANA WAS JUSTIFIED, THE FORGED CREDIT CARDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND SIEZED; THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE CARDS WHICH INDICATED THEY WERE CONTRABAND UNDER THE “PLAIN VIEW” DOCTRINE; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES UNDER THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS WORTH CONSULTING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS AN APPARENT SANCTION FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND UNDER HIS SEAT IN THE CAR; THE PEOPLE DID NOT RELY ON THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF A CAR POSSESS CONTRABAND IN THE CAR; RATHER THE PEOPLE RELIED ON THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO SAW DEFENDANT PLACE AN OBJECT UNDER HIS SEAT; AFTER DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR, THE BARREL OF THE GUN WAS IN PLAIN VIEW (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Permanent Neglect Explained
THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN LLC; ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES TO THE PARTITION ACTION ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE LLC, MEMBERS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF AN LLC; THEREFORE THE PARTITION ACTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE (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

A REVOLVER WHICH COULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE SHOOTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS;...