New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 210.20 (2026)

Perjury; pleading and proof where inconsistent statements involved

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 210.20 Perjury; pleading and proof where inconsistent statements
           involved.
  Where a person has made two statements under oath which are
inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, where
the circumstances are such that each statement, if false, is
perjuriously so, and where each statement was made within the
jurisdiction of this state and within the period of the statute of
limitations for the crime charged, the inability of the people to
establish specifically which of the two statements is the false one does
not preclude a prosecution for perjury, and such prosecution may be
conducted as follows:
  1. The indictment or information may set forth the two statements and,
without designating either, charge that one of them is false and
perjuriously made.
  2. The falsity of one or the other of the two statements may be
established by proof or a showing of their irreconcilable inconsistency.
  3. The highest degree of perjury of which the defendant may be
convicted is determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be
false and perjurious. If under such circumstances perjury of the same
degree would be established by the making of each statement, the
defendant may be convicted of that degree at most. If perjury of
different degrees would be established by the making of the two
statements, the defendant may be convicted of the lesser degree at most.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Rush v. Mordue, 502 N.E.2d 170 (NY 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rush v. Mordue, 502 N.E.2d 170 (NY 1986). · cites it 2× “10) charging that he swore falsely either when he gave his sworn statement to the police, or when he testified before the Grand Jury, because the statements were so inconsistent that one of them was necessarily false (Penal Law § 210.20). Rush moved to dismiss the indictment…”

Altieri v. Holden, 231 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · cites it 10× “Of vital significance to the present discussion, however, is the fact that the District Attorney in Matter of Rush v Mordue (supra) utilized Penal Law § 210.20 in procuring and pleading the perjury indictment.”

Hogan v. State, 516 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 1987). “2C:28-2(c); N.Y. Penal Law § 210.20 (McKinney); Ohio Rev.”

People v. Harris, 140 Misc. 2d 749 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “*754 The criticized observation of the court, concurred in by the prosecutor, did not refer to prosecution under Penal Law § 210.20, which authorizes a conviction for perjury based solely upon evidence that a defendant made two inconsistent sworn statements without proof of…”

Whitley v. Ercole, 725 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “See N.Y. Penal Law § 210.20 . ' Whitley contends that the State procured Richardson’s unavailability with the threat of perjury prosecution and by failing to immunize Richardson.”

People v. Waters, 35 Misc. 3d 855 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012). “(See Penal Law § 210.20.) * In either case, the prosecutor’s failure to disclose this information is inexcusable.”

People v. Uhrey, 169 Misc. 2d 1015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996). “” (Penal Law § 210.20.) One statement was an oral statement made by the defendant at a meeting, on September 15, 1994, with an Assistant District Attorney (hereafter ADA), investigating a murder, and the other consisted of testimony, on November 20, 1994, before a Grand Jury…”

People v. Giles, 2020 NY Slip Op 06870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “The court identified the conflict in the witness's sworn statements, directed him to tell the truth, and correctly stated the possible legal consequences involved ( see Penal Law § 210.20 [inconsistent sworn statements as perjury]).”

People v. Richard, 148 Misc. 2d 573 (1990). “The defendant is charged with perjury under the inconsistent statement theory as set forth in Penal Law § 210.20. The indictment charges that defendant made inconsistent statements, while under oath, during the course of two separate court proceedings.”

People v. Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 03973 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024). “20 provides that, "[w]here a person has made two statements under oath which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, where the circumstances are such that each statement, if false, is perjuriously so," the inability of the People to establish which…”

People v. Jones, 192 Misc. 2d 649 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). “) Miller also could not be prosecuted for perjury proven by inconsistent statements, since in such a prosecution — in which a person may be convicted of perjury based solely, upon the “irreconcilable inconsistency” of two statements, without the prosecution having to allege or…”

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.