jury concerning defense in New York

1993Further, contrary to the defendant’s assertions on appeal, no reasonable view of the evidence indicated that the defendant was justified in using deadly physical force and the court correctly refused to charge the jury concerning this defense (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [2]; People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 ; People v Jeffries, 166 AD2d 665 ).

1986Since there was no evidence that defendant’s taking of the property was done under a claim of right made in good faith, County Court properly declined to instruct the jury concerning a claim of right in good faith (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301 ).

2016However, this was not reversible error (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 132 [1984]; People v Grant, 127 AD3d 990 [2015]).

1997Francis Hosp., supra; Mack v Hall Hosp., 121 AD2d 431 ; Weeden v Armor El.

1995In response, the prosecutor renewed his request to introduce the defendant’s 1989 conviction under People v Molineux (supra) as evidence of the defendant’s intent.

1994As the Maryland Court of Appeals noted, "it should be kept in mind that the witness may be questioned out of the presence of the jury concerning the privilege, and if a privilege is claimed the trial judge may use that information to rule out a missing witness instruction" ( Robinson v State , 315 Md, at 316, 554 A2d, at 398 , supra ).

1994As the Maryland Court of Appeals noted, "it should be kept in mind that the witness may be questioned out of the presence of the jury concerning the privilege, and if a privilege is claimed the trial judge may use that information to rule out a missing witness instruction” (Robinson v State, 315 Md, at 316, 554 A2d, at 398 , supra).

1994We suggested as much in People v Rodriguez when we stated, in upholding a missing witness instruction in that case, "[n]or was there here an assertion by or on behalf of the witness that he would invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions" ( 38 N.Y.2d 95, 100 , supra [emphasis supplied]).

1994We suggested as much in People v Rodriguez when we stated, in upholding a missing witness instruction in that case, "[n]or was there here an assertion by or on behalf of the witness that he would invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions” ( 38 NY2d 95, 100 , supra [emphasis supplied]).

1993The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1993Further, contrary to the defendant’s assertions on appeal, no reasonable view of the evidence indicated that the defendant was justified in using deadly physical force and the court correctly refused to charge the jury concerning this defense (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [2]; People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 ; People v Jeffries, 166 AD2d 665 ).

1990Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 ; People v Odinga, 143 AD2d 202, 203-204 ), we find that it was not sufficient to support the asserted defense of justification.

1990Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 ; People v Odinga, 143 AD2d 202, 203-204 ), we find that it was not sufficient to support the asserted defense of justification.

1988While the instructions to the jury concerning the standard of conduct to be applied to this infant plaintiff were erroneous (Dimino v Burriesci, 125 AD2d 361 ), the claim of error has not been preserved for appellate review.

1986This case differs from People v Ricchiuti ( 93 AD2d 842 ), wherein evidence was presented showing defendant’s authority to take the property.

1984Initially, we note that, because of the lack of an objection at trial, neither of these claims has been preserved for review (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 471 ).

1981A defendant is under no burden of establishing that it was impossible for him to commit the acts charged (People v Barbato, 254 NY 170 ; People v Allen, 74 AD2d 640 ).

1981In offering testimony tending to rebut prosecution evidence establishing his presence at the scene of the crime, the defendant presented an “alibi defense.” Having done so, it was reversible error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury concerning the defense of alibi (People v Bruno, 77 AD2d 922 ; People v Ciprio, 30 AD2d 956 ).

1981A defendant is under no burden of establishing that it was impossible for him to commit the acts charged (People v Barbato, 254 NY 170 ; People v Allen, 74 AD2d 640 ).

1981In offering testimony tending to rebut prosecution evidence establishing his presence at the scene of the crime, the defendant presented an “alibi defense.” Having done so, it was reversible error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury concerning the defense of alibi (People v Bruno, 77 AD2d 922 ; People v Ciprio, 30 AD2d 956 ).

1979Plaintiff specifically requested that the court charge the statutory standard of care imposed by section 1154 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which provides: "every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.” The law is well settled that the unexcused failure to observe a statutory standard is negligence (Martin v Herzog, 228 NY 164 ; see 1 PJI 2:26 and cases cited therein).