New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 60.22 (2026)

Rules of evidence; corroboration of accomplice testimony

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 60.22  Rules of evidence; corroboration of accomplice testimony.
  1.  A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony
of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to
connect the defendant with the commission of such offense.
  2.  An "accomplice" means a witness in a criminal action who,
according to evidence adduced in such action, may reasonably be
considered to have participated in:
  (a)  The offense charged; or
  (b)  An offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or
conduct which constitute the offense charged.
  3.  A witness who is an accomplice as defined in subdivision two is no
less such because a prosecution or conviction of himself would be barred
or precluded by some defense or exemption, such as infancy, immunity or
previous prosecution, amounting to a collateral impediment to such a
prosecution or conviction, not affecting the conclusion that such
witness engaged in the conduct constituting the offense with the mental
state required for the commission thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2015 · leading case: People v. Paige, 134 A.D.3d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Paige, 134 A.D.3d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions since they were based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice in violation of Criminal Procedure Law § 60.22 (1). This contention is without merit.”

In re Khalil H., 80 A.D.3d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The drafters of the 1983 bill proposed amending Criminal Procedure Law § 60.22 to abolish consent as a defense to hazing crimes and the corroboration requirement so that hazing victims would not be considered accomplices (see Mem of Assemblyman Harenberg in Support of L 1983, ch…”

People v. Pacheco, 56 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “The concurrence is incorrect that Criminal Procedure Law § 60.22, which requires accomplice testimony to be corroborated, does not apply to this case.”

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.