New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Penal Law § 35.00 (2026)
Justification; a defense
✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 35.00 Justification; a defense. In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: People v. McManus, 496 N.E.2d 202 (N.Y. 1986).
People v. McManus, 496 N.E.2d 202 (N.Y. 1986). “Accordingly, justification under the Penal Law is an ordinary defense rather than an affirmative one (see, Penal Law § 35.00). As such, whenever justification is suffi *547 ciently interposed by the defendant, the People must prove its absence to the same degree as any element…”
People v. Hayes, 950 N.E.2d 118 (N.Y. 2011). “While, because of the cited police omission, the reliability of the statements could not be tested, there was, as noted, no hearsay bar to their admission precisely to show that an investigative lapse had occurred leaving room for reasonable doubt as to the adequacy of the…”
People v. Clark, 129 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015). “is a defense" (Penal Law § 35.00). "When a defense,' other than an affirmative defense,' .”
Mendoza v. City of Rome, 872 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). “(Compare Exhibit 4 with N.Y. Penal Law § 35.00 et seq. (McKinney 1987)).”
People v. Rojas, 80 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011). “On appeal, the defendant contends that the verdict of guilt on this count was against the weight of the credible evidence inasmuch as the People failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 35.00, 35.15). Upon the exercise of our…”
People v. Voelker, 172 Misc. 2d 564 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1997). “"Justification” is available in the "prosecution for an offense” (Penal Law § 35.00), and while defendant has failed to set forth, in his moving papers, that he was duly licensed and/or that he properly slaughtered these animals (see generally, Agriculture and Markets Law §…”
Smith v. Artus, 610 F. App'x 23 (2d Cir. 2015). “2d 313 (1996) (citations omitted); see N.Y. Penal Law § 35.00 . Further, “the defense [may] be raised against diverse charges involving the use of force, regardless of the relevant mens rea.”
Brown v. Vill. of Albion, 128 Misc. 2d 586 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). “(Penal Law § 35.00.) Penal Law § 35.30, in particular, deals with the defense of justification when officers use physical force to make an arrest.”
People v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.3d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010). “As to the law, justification is defined as a defense, not an affirmative defense (Penal Law § 35.00), and the burden of disproving it rests upon the People (Penal Law § 25.”
Moscoso v. City of New York, 92 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Under New York law, self-defense is an affirmative defense, see N.Y. Penal Law §§ 35.00 , 35.15, requiring the defendant to show that he reasonably believed that his force was necessary to prevent what he reasonably believed to be the use of unlawful physical force, see N.”
People v. Balan, 25 Misc. 3d 88 (N.Y. App. Term. 2009). “It states without qualification that the defense is available ‘[i]n any prosecution for an offense’ (Penal Law § 35.00 [emphasis added]). Likewise, section 35.”
People v. Gray, 150 Misc. 2d 852 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1991). “30 is an ordinary and not an affirmative defense (Penal Law § 35.00). Thus, the People have the burden of disproving such a defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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.