display requirement in New York

2018In an analogous circumstance, with regard to what constitutes a "display" of a firearm in the context of a first degree robbery case ( see Penal Law § 160.15[4] [robbery involving display of what appears to be a firearm]), the Court of Appeals has provided guidance by explaining that "the display requirement has been construed broadly to cover a wide range of actions which might reasonably create the impression in the mind of the victim that the robber is armed with a firearm" ( People v Lopez , 73 NY2d 214, 220-221 [1989]).

2017The dissent adopted the same erroneous conclusion, relying solely on Baskerville, that part of the legislature's intent in enacting the display requirement was "to increase the penalty for putting the victim in fear for his or her life" (Lopez, 73 NY2d at 223 [Titone, J., dissenting]).

2012Thus, it has been held that a hand consciously concealed in clothing may satisfy the display requirement “if under all the circumstances the defendant’s conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery” (Lopez, 73 NY2d at 220 ; see People v Middleton, 247 AD2d 713, 713 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 856 [1998]).

2012Thus, it has been held that a hand consciously concealed in clothing may satisfy the display requirement “if under all the circumstances the defendant’s conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery” (Lopez, 73 NY2d at 220 ; see People v Middleton, 247 AD2d 713, 713 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 856 [1998]).

2017Based on that fictional legislative intent, we wrote: “In light of the purpose of the statutory scheme, the broad wording of the display element, and the obligation to construe the Penal Law fairly to carry out the legislative intent [,] . . . ‘the display of anything that appears to be such [i.e., a firearm], though held inside a coat or otherwise obscured’ ... or even a hand consciously concealed in clothing” constitutes first-degree robbery (id., quoting Baskerville, 60 NY2d at 381 ). 5 In People v Mendez, decided with Lopez , we either decided that some movement of the apparent weapon was

2017Based on that fictional legislative intent, we wrote: "In light of the purpose of the statutory scheme, the broad wording of the display element, and the obligation to construe the Penal Law fairly to carry out the legislative intent . . . , 'the display of anything that appears to be such [i.e., a firearm], though held inside a coat or otherwise obscured' . . . or even a hand consciously concealed in clothing" constitutes first-degree robbery (id., quoting Baskerville, 60 NY2d at 381 ).5 In People v Mendez, decided with Lopez, we either decided that some movement of the apparent weapon was re

2014The display requirement “cannot be read so broadly as to include mere statements that a robber is armed with a gun” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v York, 134 AD2d 637, 638-639 [1987], appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 868 [1988]).

2014The display requirement “cannot be read so broadly as to include mere statements that a robber is armed with a gun” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v York, 134 AD2d 637, 638-639 [1987], appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 868 [1988]).

2016To satisfy the display requirement, all that is required is a “showjmg] that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 220 [1989]; see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 [1983]; People v Colon, 116 AD3d 1234, 1236 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]; CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). “[T]he object displayed need not closely resemble a firearm or bear a distinctive shape” and “even a hand consciously concealed i

2016To satisfy the display requirement, all that is required is a “showjmg] that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 220 [1989]; see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 [1983]; People v Colon, 116 AD3d 1234, 1236 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]; CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). “[T]he object displayed need not closely resemble a firearm or bear a distinctive shape” and “even a hand consciously concealed i

2014While such statements can give meaning to a robber’s otherwise ambiguous actions, such as “a hand consciously concealed in clothing” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v Toye, 107 AD3d 1149, 1150-1151 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1091 [2014]; People v Boland, 89 AD3d at 1146 ), “words alone will not constitute a display of what appears to be a firearm” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v York, 134 AD2d at 638-639 ).

2014While such statements can give meaning to a robber’s otherwise ambiguous actions, such as “a hand consciously concealed in clothing” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v Toye, 107 AD3d 1149, 1150-1151 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1091 [2014]; People v Boland, 89 AD3d at 1146 ), “words alone will not constitute a display of what appears to be a firearm” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 221 ; see People v York, 134 AD2d at 638-639 ).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2025Thus, it has been held that a hand consciously concealed in clothing may satisfy the display requirement "if under all the circumstances the defendant's conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery" ( id. at 220 ; see People v Smith , 29 NY3d 91, 97-99 [2017]; People v Williams , 100 AD3d 1444 , 1445 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]).

2025Thus, it has been held that a hand consciously concealed in clothing may satisfy the display requirement "if under all the circumstances the defendant's conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery" ( id. at 220 ; see People v Smith , 29 NY3d 91, 97-99 [2017]; People v Williams , 100 AD3d 1444 , 1445 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, during the course of the robbery, "by his actions, consciously manifest[ed] the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceive[d] that" defendant had a firearm ( Lopez , 73 NY2d at 222 ; see People v Moody , 278 AD2d 862, 862-863 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Voorhis , 207 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1016 [1994]).

2016To satisfy the display requirement, all that is required is a “showjmg] that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display” (People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 220 [1989]; see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 [1983]; People v Colon, 116 AD3d 1234, 1236 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]; CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). “[T]he object displayed need not closely resemble a firearm or bear a distinctive shape” and “even a hand consciously concealed i

2016Rather, “all that is required is a ‘show[ing] that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display’ ” (People v Grayson, 138 AD3d 1250, 1252 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1132 [2016], quoting People v Lopez, 73 NY2d at 220 ; see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d at 381 ; People v Colon, 116 AD3d 1234, 1236 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]).