# People v. Feingold

> New York Court of Appeals · July 5, 2006 · 7 N.Y.3d 288

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740078

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry Feingold, Appellant
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 5, 2006
- **Citations:** 7 N.Y.3d 288; 819 N.Y.S.2d 691; 2006 NY Slip Op 5233; 852 N.E.2d 1163; 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 1830
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Graffeo
- **Judges:** Smith, Ciparick, Graffeo
- **Cited by:** 249 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740078

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, in overruling Register and Sanchez, the court was simply “confirming what [was] implicit in the line of cases [beginning with] Hafeez”
- noting that a case may state a “ ‘quintessential’ case of depraved indifference murder [where] the circumstantial proof of depraved indifference would be compelling”
- finding that evidence could permit the inference of depraved indifference mens rea
- noting that the shift away from the Register/Sanchez formulation of depraved indifference murder began with Hafeez

## Opinion text

Graffeo, J.
(dissenting). I continue to believe that People v *305 Suarez ( 6 NY3d 202 [2005]) was wrongly decided since it deviated significantly from People v Sanchez ( 98 NY2d 373 [2002]) (see People v Suarez, 6 NY3d at 219 [Graffeo, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part]). Because the majority in this case goes further and overrules Sanchez , I agree with my dissenting colleagues that today’s transformation of the well-settled meaning of “depraved indifference” from an objective factual assessment into a subjective mens rea requirement cannot be reconciled with the language of the reckless endangerment statute or the prior rationale of this Court (see People v Suarez, 6 NY3d at 219-228 [Graffeo, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part]). That being said, my dissenting colleagues have cogently explained why the facts of this case fit within the depraved indifference jurisprudence discussed in Suarez (see id. at 214) and defendant’s conviction should be affirmed on this basis alone.
Judges Rosenblatt, Read and R.S. Smith concur with Judge G.B. Smith; Judge Ciparick dissents and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Chief Judge Kaye concurs; Chief Judge Kaye dissents in another opinion; Judge Graffeo dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion.
Order modified, etc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740078. Public record. Not legal advice.