Below you’ll find my short video overview on the topic:
What to know about The CCIA – YouTube
The passage of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in New York has caused significant confusion and uncertainty among firearm license holders, practitioners, and policy observers alike. With much of the commentary online being outdated, incomplete, or simply incorrect, it’s important to take a moment to clarify:
If you are facing a serious charge like assault in New York, your right to a fair trial includes more than just a competent defense—it includes how the jury is instructed on evaluating eyewitness testimony. In People v. Salas, the New York Court of Appeals tackled a defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the potential challenges of cross-racial identification. The decision highlights how preserved objections and thorough jury instructions can shape the outcome of a criminal case.
The prosecution charged Salas with second-degree assault following a 2019 altercation in Manhattan. During trial, the People relied heavily on testimony from the victim, who identified Salas as his attacker. The identification was made after a single-photo display, and the victim and Salas were of different racial backgrounds.
In People v. Brenda WW, the New York Court of Appeals addressed how the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) should be applied on appeal. Specifically, the Court clarified that while an appellate court has full authority to resentence a defendant under the DVSJA, it may not reduce or eliminate the mandatory postrelease supervision term by crediting excess time already served.
This decision underscores the importance of understanding both the procedural and sentencing implications of the DVSJA for those incarcerated as a result of surviving prolonged abuse.
Brenda WW was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, assault, and a weapons offense for killing her abusive husband. She received a sentence of twenty years to life, along with a five-year postrelease supervision term. Years later, she applied for resentencing under the DVSJA, which allows sentencing relief for incarcerated survivors of domestic abuse if they can prove that abuse was a significant factor in their offense.
Brenda presented extensive evidence that her husband had subjected her to years of brutal physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, including cigarette burns, strangulation, and repeated assaults. Based on this history, she argued that her twenty-year sentence was unduly harsh and requested relief under the DVSJA.
In People v. T.P. (2025), the New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for first-degree manslaughter, finding that trial counsel’s failure to object during a highly improper prosecutorial summation deprived the defendant of her right to a fair trial.
The defendant, referred to as T.P., was charged with first-degree manslaughter under Penal Law § 125.20(1) after she stabbed and killed her boyfriend during a violent confrontation. T.P. contended she acted in self-defense under Penal Law § 35.15, explaining that the victim had repeatedly abused her—physically, sexually, and emotionally—which was corroborated by witnesses and supported by a prior order of protection.
On the night of the incident, the confrontation escalated significantly. According to T.P., her boyfriend forcibly performed oral sex, strangled her, and during the ensuing struggle, fearing for her life, she grabbed a knife and stabbed him once.
In recent years, products like the Byrna launcher—a CO₂-powered less-lethal device that fires kinetic or chemical projectiles—have become increasingly popular among people looking for self-defense alternatives. But the legality of these devices in New York State is not straightforward. While state law treats them differently than firearms, local restrictions, especially in New York City, make the picture much more complicated.
In this article, we break down where Byrna and similar devices stand under New York and federal law, and how recent court decisions may affect their future legality. If you’d like to hear me discuss this issue directly, you can watch my short explainer video here:
👉 Watch the video
In People v. Bacon, the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed a long-standing rule: if your defense lawyer fails to raise a specific constitutional objection during trial, you may lose the ability to argue that issue on appeal. This decision is a clear warning to anyone charged with a serious crime—the preservation of your rights depends heavily on the conduct and awareness of your attorney during every stage of trial. It is essential to use experienced counsel when facing charges in New York.
The case arose from a robbery and assault in Brooklyn. Two victims gave statements to police officers at the scene. One of them, while being treated in an ambulance, described the attackers, including the defendant. The prosecution did not call either victim to testify at trial. Instead, two police officers testified about what the victims had allegedly said, including identifying information about the defendant.
During the trial, defense counsel made only one specific objection to the officers’ testimony: a hearsay objection to a statement by one victim about what the other had said. The court sustained that limited objection. However, no constitutional objection was made under the Confrontation Clause, which protects your right to cross-examine the witnesses against you.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing that the People’s evidence was not sufficient. Counsel mentioned that the jury could not evaluate the female victim’s physical or mental condition, and noted there had been no chance to cross-examine her. Still, the motion focused solely on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence, not on a constitutional violation.
If you’ve been arrested and are facing a jury trial, one of the most important stages in a jury trial is jury selection. A single biased juror can jeopardize the fairness of your entire case. In a recent opinion out of Brooklyn, a defendant convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree secured a new trial—not because of what happened during the shooting or trial itself, but because the trial court failed to remove a prospective juror who openly admitted he couldn’t be impartial.
Facts: A Deli Shooting Leads to a Gun Possession Charge
In May 2018, a shooting occurred outside a deli on Kings Highway in Brooklyn. The defendant was later arrested and charged with several crimes, including second-degree criminal possession of a weapon based on allegations that he had a loaded firearm during the incident.
If you’re a survivor of domestic violence and serving time for a crime you committed while in an abusive relationship, you may be wondering whether New York law allows you to be resentenced based on your trauma. Under Criminal Procedure Law § 440.47, the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) offers exactly that opportunity. But to qualify, you must meet specific criteria—and proving your case takes more than simply showing you were abused. A recent appellate decision out of Nassau County shows exactly where these motions can succeed or fall short.
The Facts Behind the Motion
In 2014, the defendant in this case was involved in a serious car crash that left another driver with life-altering injuries. At the time, she was operating her vehicle while under the influence of drugs. She later pleaded guilty to multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses, including first-degree assault and vehicular assault, and received a ten-year prison sentence as a second felony offender.
When you’re accused of a sex crime, one of the most damaging developments in your case can be the admission of past allegations—especially if they involve similar conduct. In People v. Sin, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for first-degree rape and sexual abuse, ruling that testimony from two of the defendant’s other sisters-in-law about previous attempted sexual assaults was properly admitted at trial. The court found this evidence relevant to the central issue in the case: whether the defendant had criminal intent during the alleged assault.
This ruling is a significant reminder that your prior conduct—even if it never led to criminal charges—can be introduced against you if the court determines it’s legally relevant. Understanding how and why this kind of evidence may be used is essential for anyone facing similar allegations.
The Allegations Against the Defendant
The charges in Sin stemmed from a violent sexual assault reported by the defendant’s sister-in-law. The victim testified that while she and her young child were sleeping in her apartment, the defendant entered under the pretense of delivering mail. After propositioning her and being rejected, the defendant allegedly physically restrained the victim, assaulted her, and raped her on the floor of her home, with her child present.
New York Criminal Attorney Blog
