You are here: / / WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED)...
,

WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY UPON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF AT TRIAL; IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the court committed (harmless) error when it ruled, prior to the trial, that the jury would not be instructed on the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) affirmative defense:

… [T]he court erred in determining prior to trial that it would not charge the jury on the affirmative defense of EED. A defendant may be entitled to a jury charge on the affirmative defense of EED based solely on the People’s proof … , and thus it was error for the court to make that ruling without any consideration of the People’s evidence. People v Taglianetti, 2020 NY Slip Op 02561, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

You might also like
Resentencing After Original Sentence Expired Violates Double Jeopardy Clause
PLAINTIFF PULLED A LOAD OF WASTE BACKWARDS THROUGH AN ACCESS DOOR APPARENTLY EXPECTING THE LIFT TO BE POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE DOOR; THE LIFT HAD MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE GROUND; THE ACCESS DOOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED BEFORE THE LIFT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ACCESS DOOR LOCK, A SAFETY DEVICE, WAS MISSING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT).
INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT.
Emergency Doctrine Precluded Action on Behalf of Driver of Car Which Crossed Into On-Coming Lane of Traffic; ”Noseworthy” Doctrine Did Not Apply to Reduce Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Burden of Proof
Counsel’s Failure to Object to References to Defendant’s Nickname Constituted Ineffective Assistance/Court’s Dismissal of an Entire Jury Panel Was Reversible Error
DUE TO NEGLIGENCE BY A TIRE SHOP WHICH CONCEDED LIABILITY, A WHEEL FLEW OFF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR, DEFENDANT-DRIVER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

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

DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THE WAIVER OF APPEAL FORECLOSED... DENIAL OF FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE...