You are here: / / CONVICTION OF A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (I.E....

CONVICTION OF A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (I.E. COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CHILD) VACATED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction of a lesser included count:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of predatory sexual assault against a child under Penal Law § 130.96 requires dismissal of the lesser included count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75(1)(a) … . People v Mendez-Huales, 2020 NY Slip Op 04774, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

You might also like
Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained
Evidence Defendant Had Victimized Other Children Justified Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding
A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR VENUE PURPOSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER STRUCK IT FROM BEHIND; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STOPPING THE CAR IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (AS OPPOSED TO MERELY FURNISHING THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT?) (SECOND DEPT).
OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN PREJUDICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AS A TECHNICAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity

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

CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED DESPITE FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT... PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL...