green
Positive treatment
Issue: temporary and lawful possession instructionNY ↗
Issue: essential element claimNY ↗
34.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…utterly at odd's with defendant's claim of innocent possession
at p. 902
✓
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…utterly at odds with defendant's claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally resulting from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor
at p. 902
✓
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…utterly at odds with his claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally resulting from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor
at p. 902
≈ altered
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ramirez
(2×)
Banks , 76 NY2d at 800-801 [no right to instruction where the defendant prevented use of gun by others during an altercation and merely intended to carry the gun elsewhere to dispose of it in a sewer]; People v Snyder , 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989] [no right to instruction where the defendants disarmed the original possessor of a loaded gun during an altercation and merely kept the gun under a bed overnight]; Aracil , 45 AD3d at 401-402 [no right to instruction where the defendant disarmed the original possessor of a gun during an altercation [*10]and merely introduced the "loaded firearm into …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rose
Based on this uncontested evidence, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could rationally conclude ( see People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 ; People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 ) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily possessed the weapon in a manner and place that violated Penal Law § 265.03(3), [*3]inconsistent with a claim of temporary and innocent possession ( see People v Snyder , 73 NY2d 900, 902 [retaining gun overnight after taking it during an altercation]; People v Williams , 50 NY2d at 1045 [secreting gun in a hiding place]; People…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Lance Williams
(2×)
Banks, 76 NY2d at 801 ; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tomczyk
During the six to eight hours the gun remained in his possession after the shooting, defendant made no effort to report it to the police, even when he saw police officers outside his apartment building and even when police officers and his parole officer arrived at his apartment in the course of their investigation of the shooting ( see People v Snyder , 73 NY2d 900, 901-02 [1989] [where the defendants "made no effort to report the incident to the State Police, notwithstanding . . . that the police were at the scene when (they) returned there one-half hour later," the evidence was "utterly at …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Frazier
Retaining a gun beyond opportunities to safely relinquish it is “ ‘utterly at odds’ ” with any claim of innocent possession (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]; see People v Hawkins, 258 AD2d at 472).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Madore
Here, the evidence establishing that defendant possessed the knife for the purpose of inflicting serious physical injury to the victim and that he did not immediately turn over the weapon to the police is “utterly at odds with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Robinson, 63 AD3d 1634, 1635 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Madore
Here, the evidence establishing that defendant possessed the knife for the purpose of inflicting serious physical injury to the victim and that he did not immediately turn over the weapon to the police is “utterly at odds with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Robinson, 63 AD3d 1634, 1635 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MADORE, MARC, PEOPLE v
Here, the evidence establishing that defendant possessed the knife for the purpose of inflicting serious physical injury to the victim and that he did not immediately turn over the weapon to the police is “utterly at odds with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Robinson, 63 AD3d 1634, 1635 , lv denied 13 NY3d 799 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Holmes
Indeed, defendant’s decision to take the firearm with him after the initial altercation at Smith’s store, despite having called 911, and keeping the firearm with him during his escalating confrontation with Sparrow is “utterly at odd’s with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ward, 104 AD3d 1323, 1324-1325 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1101 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Holmes
Indeed, defendant’s decision to take the firearm with him after the initial altercation at Smith’s store, despite having called 911, and keeping the firearm with him during his escalating confrontation with Sparrow is “utterly at odd’s with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ward, 104 AD3d 1323, 1324-1325 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1101 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HOLMES, CARL J., PEOPLE v
Indeed, defendant’s decision to take the firearm with him after the initial altercation at Smith’s store, despite having called 911, and keeping the firearm with him during his escalating confrontation with Sparrow is “utterly at odd’s with [defendant’s] claim of innocent possession” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ward, 104 AD3d 1323, 1324-1325 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1101 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fuentes
The defendant’s statements during the plea allocution triggered the County Court’s duty to inquire as to a potential defense of temporary lawful possession of a weapon (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799 [1990]; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901 [1989]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sinkler
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see Williams, 50 NY2d at 1044 ), we conclude that the jury could not have found that defendant’s possession was innocent and, indeed, the evidence “is ‘utterly at odds with ... [a] claim of innocent possession’ ” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting Williams, 50 NY2d at 1045 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sinkler
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see Williams, 50 NY2d at 1044 ), we conclude that the jury could not have found that defendant’s possession was innocent and, indeed, the evidence “is ‘utterly at odds with ... [a] claim of innocent possession’ ” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting Williams, 50 NY2d at 1045 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HICKS, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v
Defendant’s purposeful avoidance of the police is “utterly at odds with [his] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” (Snyder, 73 NY2d at 902 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gonzalez, 262 AD2d at 1062 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hicks
(2×)
Although a person may be found to have had temporary and lawful possession of a weapon if he or she took the weapon from an assailant in the course of a fight (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130 [1984]), here the jury reasonably could have found that defendant, after taking the gun at issue from another person, retained possession of it despite the opportunity to turn it over to lawful authorities (see People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]; see also People v Gonzalez, 262 AD2d 1061, 1061-1062 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1018 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hicks
(2×)
Although a person may be found to have had temporary and lawful possession of a weapon if he or she took the weapon from an assailant in the course of a fight (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130 [1984]), here the jury reasonably could have found that defendant, after taking the gun at issue from another person, retained possession of it despite the opportunity to turn it over to lawful authorities (see People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]; see also People v Gonzalez, 262 AD2d 1061, 1061-1062 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1018 [1999]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ward
That evidence “is ‘utterly at odds with ... [a] claim of innocent possession’ ” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting Williams, 50 NY2d at 1045 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ward
That evidence “is ‘utterly at odds with ... [a] claim of innocent possession’ ” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting Williams, 50 NY2d at 1045 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Curry
(2×)
Despite defendant’s grand jury testimony that he only intended to get the gun away from the victim to prevent the victim from shooting at defendant and his codefendants, the jury could have determined from their actions that, upon taking the gun, they sought to hide it and keep it rather than holding it temporarily, refuting the claim of innocent possession (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d at 801 ; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Robinson
Such conduct is “utterly at odds with [any] claim of innocent possession . . . temporarily and incidentally [resulting] from . . . disarming a wrongful possessor” (People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v McCoy, 46 AD3d 1348, 1349-1350 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 813 [2008]; People v Bell, 46 AD3d 385 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 808 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dickson
Simply stated, neither version of the events leading up to the victim being wounded with a knife would support the conclusion that defendant’s possession was either temporary or innocent (see People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901 [1989]; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 129 [1984]; People v Hayes, 51 AD3d 688, 688 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 737 [2008]; People v Reid, 16 AD3d 130, 130 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 890 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hayes
The trial court correctly declined to provide the jury with a charge regarding the temporary, innocent, and lawful possession of a weapon, as there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant had a legal excuse for possessing the weapon and that the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990]; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1044-1045 [1980]; People v Caldarola, 45 AD3d 600, 600-601 [2007]; People v Medina, 237 AD2d 382, 382-383 [1997]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sheehan
Defendant’s conduct in fleeing upon the approach of the police and then depositing the weapon in a garbage can was “utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession” (People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]; see also People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799 [1990]; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; People v Hughes, 289 AD2d 186 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 638 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pardner
Assuming, arguendo, that the defense of temporary innocent possession is applicable to cases involving possession of a controlled substance (see generally Public Health Law § 3305 [1]; People v E.C., 195 Misc 2d 680, 683-686 [2003]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that supports the inference that defendant’s possession of the cocaine was innocent (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990]; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1044-1045 [1980]; People v Hightower, 237 AD2d 166 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1094 [1997]). �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Reid
The court properly refused to charge temporary lawful possession of a weapon since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he acquired the weapon by disarming someone or by any other lawful means, or that he intended to dispose of it in a lawful manner (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990]; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Cook
In any event, such a charge was not warranted because even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [*2]the defendant, the defendant's conduct after he gained possession of the gun was "utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession" ( People v Banks , 76 NY2d 799, 801 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Snyder , 73 NY2d 900, 902 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Reel
(2×)
However, a defendant is not entitled to the charge where the evidence presented is “utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession” (People v Banks, 76 NY2d at 801 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People *1029 v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d at 1045 ; People v Smith, 54 AD3d 421, 421 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Sooknanan
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his conduct was not consistent with innocent possession (see generally People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]; accord People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; People v Hawkins, 258 AD2d 472 [1999]; People v Ortiz, 172 AD2d 696 [1991]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Bell
Even under defendant’s version of the events, his conduct was “utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession” (People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]; see also People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 901-902 [1989]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Sutherland
Similarly, "there is no reasonable view of the trial evidence upon which the jury could have found defendant’s possession of a loaded [gun] to be innocent and lawful” (People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 800 ; see also, People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jon Snyder, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne Rude Snyder, Appellant
v.
Jon Snyder, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne Rude Snyder, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 9, 1989.
536 N.E.2d 614
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Salvatore D. Ferlazzo, Stephen R. Coffey and Thomas J. DiNovo for appellants., Michael A. West, District Attorney (Kent J. Gebert of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 54 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
We agree with the Appellate Division that there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could have found defendants’ possession of the weapon to be innocent. Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to the instructions for temporary lawful possession and cannot now complain about the substance of the court’s charge to the jury.
Defendants, two brothers, wrested a loaded pistol from Bruce Van Allen while assaulting him during an altercation outside a bar. They then walked to their nearby home and discussed what to do with the gun. After considering throwing it in a river, burying it, or placing it in a mailbox, they decided to put off the disposition of the gun until the next day. Defendants made no effort to report the incident to the State Police, notwithstanding that the barracks were around the corner from the bar and that the police were at the scene[*902] when defendants returned there one-half hour later. Indeed, Wayne Snyder had removed the clip from the gun and placed it under his bed, where it remained until it was retrieved the next morning by the State Police. This evidence is "utterly at odds with [defendants’] claim of innocent possession” (People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1045) "temporarily and. incidentally [resulting] from * * * disarming a wrongful possessor” (People v Persce, 204 NY 397, 402).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
Orders affirmed in a memorandum.