New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 270.25 (2026)
Trial jury; peremptory challenge of an individual juror
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 270.25 Trial jury; peremptory challenge of an individual juror. 1. A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned. Upon any peremptory challenge, the court must exclude the person challenged from service. 2. Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: (a) Twenty for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class A felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected. (b) Fifteen for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class B or class C felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected. (c) Ten for the regular jurors in all other cases, and two for each alternate juror to be selected. 3. When two or more defendants are tried jointly, the number of peremptory challenges prescribed in subdivision two of this section is not multiplied by the number of defendants, but such defendants are to be treated as a single party. In any such case, a peremptory challenge by one or more defendants must be allowed if a majority of the defendants join in such challenge, or if there is a tie when there is an even number of defendants. Otherwise, it must be disallowed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: People v. Luciano, 890 N.E.2d 214 (NY 2008).
People v. Luciano, 890 N.E.2d 214 (NY 2008). “Criminal Procedure Law § 270.25 (1) provides that a peremptory challenge is an "objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned.”
People v. Wright, 42 N.Y.3d 708 (NY 2024). “Two years ago, the New York State Justice Task Force (the Task Force) recommended amending Criminal Procedure Law § 270.25 by adopting a "reasonable person standard" ( see Recommendations Regarding Reforms to Jury Selection in New York at 15, New York State Justice Task Force…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.