N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART General Provisions / TITLE Defenses / ARTICLE Defense of Justification
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 35.25 (2026)

Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate
          larceny or criminal mischief.
  A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force,
upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property
other than premises.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: In re Timothy HH., 41 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Timothy HH., 41 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007). · cites it 2× “Further, it is clear from the record that respondent struck the victim’s car out of anger because his threat was ignored rather than to prevent the taking of his pets.”
People v. Reid, 508 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y. 1987). “, Penal Law § 35.25 [indicating that a person would be justified in using nondeadly force to prevent an apparent larcenist from taking his property]).”
People v. Banks, 2 A.D.3d 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003). “The court properly exercised its discretion in briefly instructing the jury on the law governing the store’s security guards’ use of physical force against defendant (Penal Law § 35.25). Since a major theme of the defense was the alleged misuse of force by the security guards,…”
People v. Rodriguez, 73 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010). “Furthermore, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a jury charge on the justifiable use of “physical force” (Penal Law § 35.25). Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that the force he…”
Robinson v. Greene, 507 F. Supp. 2d 279 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “15 (regular self-defense) and Penal Law § 35.25 (defense of premises during the course of a burglary or attempted burglary), and submitted proposed charges.”
People v. Solomon, 96 A.D.3d 1396 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012). “of larceny” (Penal Law § 35.25). “ ‘It is a fundamental rule of law that jury instructions are required to be responsive to the issues presented by the evidence’ ” (People v Lewis, 160 AD2d 815, 816 [1990], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 738 [1990]; see generally CPL 300.”
People v. Velez, 198 A.D.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1993). “Nor did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury that it should consider whether defendant was justified in using physical force to terminate a larceny, there being no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 )…”
People v. Covich, 241 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1997). “There is also no merit to the contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion during jury selection by denying defense counsel’s request that the court direct courtroom security personnel to move away from defendant.”
People v. DeLaCruz, 144 N.Y.S.3d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he was not entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of justification pursuant to Penal Law § 35.25 or § 35.30, with respect to the assault charges against him.”
People v. Codd (Michael), No. 2019 NYSlipOp 51799(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Nov. 1, 2019). “10 (6) and, by operation of law, one of the ensuing provisions referred to therein, Penal Law § 35.25, as a reasonable view of the evidence supported the conclusion that he had used physical force justifiably to prevent or terminate a larceny of his personal property.”
People v. Clifford (John), 69 Misc. 3d 135(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2020). “Defendant's contention on appeal that he was entitled to a justification charge under Penal Law §§ 35.25 and 35.15 (2) as to the menacing count of which he was convicted is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.”
Solomon, Joequell E., People v., No. KA 10-01960 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't June 8, 2012). “of larceny” (Penal Law § 35.25). “ ‘It is a fundamental rule of law that jury instructions are required to be responsive to the issues presented by the evidence’ ” (People v Lewis, 160 AD2d 815, 816 , lv dismissed 76 NY2d 738 ; see generally CPL 300.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.