People v. Essor - Criminal Conviction Affirmation

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 4th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed a judgment convicting Richard Essor of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon. The court found the defendant's contentions regarding juror excusal and sentencing unpreserved for review or without merit.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction of Richard Essor for murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court ruled that the defendant failed to preserve his arguments concerning the sua sponte excusal of observant Jewish prospective jurors and the constitutionality of his sentence as a second violent felony offender. The court also found the imposed sentence was not excessive.

This decision affirms the lower court's judgment and sentence. For legal professionals and criminal defendants, this case highlights the importance of preserving arguments for appeal by raising them before the trial court. Failure to do so can result in the appellate court declining to review the issues, even in the interest of justice, as occurred in this instance regarding the sentencing challenge.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Essor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01220
Docket Number: Ind. No. 7784/17
Opinion
Authorities (5)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Essor (2026 NY Slip Op 01220)
| People v Essor |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01220 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 4, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LILLIAN WAN
JAMES P. MCCORMACK
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2019-13711
(Ind. No. 7784/17)

*[1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

Richard Essor, appellant.**

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Simcha Engelen of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen Riviezzo, J.), rendered October 24, 2019, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that the Supreme Court erred in excusing, sua sponte, and prior to the voir dire, observant Jewish prospective jurors who would be unavailable to serve on the upcoming Jewish holidays without further inquiry (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hopkins, 76 NY2d 872, 873; People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d 601, 601). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the allegedly improper excusal of those jurors did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation (see People v Augustus, 163 AD3d 981, 982; People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d at 601). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit (see People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573, 574).

The defendant's contention that his sentence as a second violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.04) is unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge or otherwise contest his criminal history, including the relevant periods of incarceration, before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hernandez, 43 NY3d 591, 597; People v McGill, 243 AD3d 808, 808). We decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v McGill, 243 AD3d at 808; People v Munoz, 237 AD3d 1110, 1111).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

BARROS, J.P., WAN, MCCORMACK and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court