People v. Swinton
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Swinton v. City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2011)
- Fernandez v. Smith (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- People v. Dickerson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Palmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Verneus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Barboni (N.Y. 2013)
- SANTIAGO, JESSICA L., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Martinez (N.Y. 2012)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Swinton v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Bolling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Pomie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. LaGasse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Bradley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Abar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. George (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Waldron (New York Supreme Court 2007)
- Policano v. Herbert (N.Y. 2006)
- People v. Gordon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reducing defendants’ convictions for assault in the first degree to assault in the third degree and remitting to Supreme Court for resentencing and, as so modified, affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence is legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants acted with the culpable mental state of depraved indifference (People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288 [2006]). The evidence is legally sufficient, however, to support the jury’s determination that defendants acted recklessly.
Judges G.B. Smith, Rosenblatt, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick and Graffeo concur in result on constraint of People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]).
In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.